Talk:Act of Settlement 1701

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholicism[edit]

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)[reply]

Anglican[edit]

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)

Marriage to non-Protestants[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"the losers"[edit]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

What about the descendants of Karl Ludwig, Elector Palatine from his second marriage? Are they considered illegitimate for some reason? Doesn't the Act allow for the crown to pass to descendants from a second marriage made after the person in question is divorced? (i.e., to Charles and Camilla's children, if they were to miraculously have some now). I think the list above should include Karl's granddaughter Frederica Darcy, Countess FitzWalter, 3rd Countess of Mértola (1688-1751), whose representative today is Lady Diana Miller, 11th Countess of Mértola (b. 1920) (see Count of Mértola for her descent) —User:mathmannix 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The daughters of that second marriage are in my list, but not the five sons, none of whom have articles, hmm. Their ages at death are 29, 21, 31, 18, 15. Did any of them have issue? —Tamfang (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What if?[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
You couldn't fall back on the common law, as England & Scotland are different. There are 2 possibilities:
Most likely, the throne would become vacant & Parliament would choose a sovereign.
Alternatively, the Treaty of Union would be frustrated, England & SCotland would become separate kingdoms, & their thrones would pass to the next heirs under their respective laws, who might or might not gbe the same.
Peter jackson (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The real line of succession is the list of 39 people published by the palace.[2] Whitaker's Almanack lists five additional names, and these can be considered royalty also rans. If the entire line suddenly died, married Catholics, or fled the country, parliament would have to declare the throne vacant as in 1688. It could then select another dynasty, adjust the succession rules, or leave it vacant. Figuring out who is 359th on the list or whatever is a little genealogists' pass time. Kauffner (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol The Act of Settlement will likely be amended before the line of succession runs out. Sooner or later an heir,maybe even the present heir presumptive, will disavow the Church of England. I mean, its all such nonsense isn't it? Being head of a church founded because its founder couldn't marry the woman he wanted.Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea what you're talking about. The real line of succession is the line of descendants of the Electress Sophia. If the 44 people you mention all die, the throne would pass to Zenouska Mowatt. If she died too, the throne would pass to the Earl of Harewood, and so forth - parliament could, of course, decide that it didn't want to do that, but it would require action. Even the web page you refer to notes that protestant descendants of electress Sophia are eligible. Is it your contention that Zenouska Mowatt and the Earl of Harewood are not protestant descendants of Sophia? Or that an unofficial list on a web page trumps the actual words of the Act of Settlement? The reason figuring out who is 359th in line is irrelevant is not because parliament would declare the throne vacant if everyone up through Princess Alexandra died. It's because it's incredibly unlikely that anyone beyond the first five or so people in the line of succession would ever succeed - actuarially, I would guess that the chances that the Earl of Wessex or his descendants should ever succeed to the throne are not much better than the chances of whoever is 359th in line doing so. john k (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
JesseG 03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Part Debate[edit]

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.

Tony Blair's views[edit]

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)[reply]

Adrian Hilton[edit]

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)[reply]

Catholic endorsement[edit]

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)[reply]

Commonwealth Realms[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Act of Settlement 1700?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If that's correct, the article should clearly say so, which it appears not to @ present. Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring factually accurate Introduction[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Category:British laws[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It is not in a sub cat of British laws. Astrotrain 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. --Mais oui! 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

foreign monarchs[edit]

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)[reply]

So much for that idea. —Tamfang (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that this clause became dormant at the accession of Victoria, who could not inherit Hanover. In fact, George III, George IV, and William IV were English-born, so the article would not apply to them.Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Rendundant parts[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[3]--Henrygb 09:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 [4] to see the current position --Henrygb 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Perhaps to legitimize the theory that James II abdicated de facto when he fled. —Tamfang 05:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the act does it say this? I can't find any reference to it. Bardcom (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because they were annoyed that William III spent time in Holland, and were expecting a German princeling to succeed who, they feared, might spend all his time in Germany. I believe that this was later amended under one of the first two Georges so he could go to Germany when he wanted to. john k (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.

Anti-Catholicism category[edit]

just wondering if this article should be categorised as Category:Anti-Catholicism.--w_tanoto (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

  There is an article "anti-catholicism in england" that cross references to here.

Attending Catholic services etc.[edit]

The act also states that anyone who attends Catholic services, eg. Mass, Communion etc is removed from any claim to the throne. "Queen" Elizabeth has indeed attended Catholic services(while remaining a member of C of E) and has socialised with Catholic Bishops etc. According to the very law that made her Queen in 1952 she should have been forced to abdicate, and Charles been declared the King of England. The Church of England were up in arms about this, but it went unnoticed. By rights the present Head of the Commonwealth is King Charles III(assuming he were to to take this name)! No No No No No No Yes (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attending a service wouldn't incapacitate you, nor would socialising with Roman Catholics even if they are bishops. Recieving communion from a Catholic bishop would, and as far as I know she hasn't. That said, this is not a forum. Cheers. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208

The Queen forfeited the Crown amongst other ways by having Holy Communion at VESPERS at the Westminster Catholic church in 2005 and mixing with the Roman Catholic Church - the Church of England has refused to comment on the matter even though they were up in arms about it then. No No No No No No Yes (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19951201&id=phwMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SF0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6785,130711

There's no need to be rude... No No No No No No Yes (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being rude, merely pointing out that talkspace is for improving the article not for political discussion. That said, the source points out she merely attended a service. Mass wasn't celebrated, hence no communion, hence no violation. See: Eucharist if you're unsure what communion is. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Act does not say "anyone who attends Catholic services, eg. Mass, Communion etc is removed from any claim to the throne". What it does say is "all and every Person and Persons who... is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist..." The triggers are clear. Moonraker (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior History of "quamdiu se bene gesserint"[edit]

On 12 Jan 1641 the House of Lords petitioned Charles I to make a number of appointments "quamdiu se bene gesserint". --Jbergquist (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A form of a similar phrase used in Scotland, ad vitam aut culpam (for life or fault), can be found in Acts & Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, 1560-1618 (1839) in an entry dated "18 of Marche 1600",

"By craft they got such a Moderator as they had at their own devotion; and yet there was such opposition made be many worthy brethren, that they could not get perpetuity of Commission to vote in Parliament, ad vitam or ad culpam, agreed unto; but only that it should be annual: Which conclusion the King and the Clerk, by adding thereto, drew as near their purpose as they could; to wit, that the Commissioner voter in Parliament should give account annuatim, and lay down the office at the feet of the Assembly, to be continued, or altered, as the Assembly, with consent of the King, sall think most expedient."

Did Cicero's De Officiis play a role? James I's Basilikon Doron is done in a similar style. --Jbergquist (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really worked[edit]

This law really worked for the British royal family. Virtually all of the Queens of the United Kingdom (not sure about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon though) were Protestants with not even one Catholic ancestor in the generations after the Break with Rome and the Reformation. Elizabeth II has no Catholic relations; her relation to the King of Spain, the King of Belgium, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg comes from common Protestant ancestors instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a Protestant?[edit]

Is it enough to be of any Christian denomination, no matter how obscure, as long it's not Catholicism, to be considered a Protestant for the purposes of the Act of Settlement? If not, what are the limits of Protestantism? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Act requires the monarch to be a communicant of the Church of England. So technically, I suppose the heir could belong to any religion as long as it is not Catholicism, and as long as he became a member of the Church of England at his succession. George I could not have been a communicant of the Church of England when he succeeded Anne. The monarch could in fact be Catholic in their beliefs and practice if they he or she were affiliated with the Anglo-Catholic stream within the Church of England.Gazzster (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was first pressed with the arrival of all the Lutherans at court in the late 17th/early 18th centuries: i.e. first Prince George of Denmark, consort to Queen Anne, and then of course George I etc after 1714. There was an official German Chapel Royal at which Lutheran, and blended Lutheran/Anglican worship, was celebrated. I believe there was some ambiguity regarding whether or not these Lutheran-born royals had to 'convert' to the Church of England, or whether Lutheran orders and communion were deemed compatible with Anglican such that no 'conversion' was necessary. Norman Sykes asserts that one school of thought at the time held that the Lutherans and Anglicans were essentially in communion with on another. Others, particularly "High Churchmen" denied the "regularity" of Lutheran ordination; while others held that the Lutheran sacramental theology--the doctrine of "ubiquity"--was too Catholic. Did George I ever have to formally declare his Anglican conversion? I don't thinks so. And while supreme head of the Church of England he was simultaneously head of the Lutheran church of Hanover-Brunswick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.65.128 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Present Debate[edit]

A BBC news article that can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12225093 indicates that there is an ongoing effort to amend the act to give more equality to first born daughters. Perhaps an interested editor could update the section. 129.67.172.102 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, if preference for males is removed, will the Queen issue new letters patent governing the use of the style Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom? At present, only William's eldest son would be styled as prince during Elizabeth II's reign due to letters patent issued by George V. It wouldn't make any sense to see William's daughter called (eg) Lady Mary Windsor if she were ahead of her younger brother, (eg) Prince George, in the line of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James II & VII's nephew[edit]

William III of England, II of Scotland is not Jimmy's nephew? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in question somewhere? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently so, at this article, as you've deleted it again. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My edit summary didn't indicate any questioning of the relationship. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Succession reform[edit]

Assuming the 16 parliaments will approve the 'genders are equal' amendment, will it keep Savanna Phillips ahead of any future brothers (as the Phillips' children will be the same generation as the Cambridge children)? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And will the right to succeed be limited to the descendants of a more recent monarch? If not and if the change won't be retroactive, how will it be possible to know who the new rules apply to? Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The changes only affect descendents of the Prince Charles. The old rules remain for the rest of the line of succession and their descendents save for the ban on marrying Catholics and the requirement to get the Queen's permission to marry. Of course, when you get beyond the immediate family one's place in succession is only an issue for bragging rights and is of little practical consequence. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, if Charlie & his line get wiped out, the amendment to the succession is no more. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, though I expect they'd just apply it to the new brood. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The LEAD[edit]

Perhaps I am not understanding the prose, but it seems to me that over half of the LEAD has nothing to do with this Act. Is it not the case that settlement basically states that the laws of the colonies are the laws of the crown, and therefore, the Act of Settlement is the law of the colonies? If that is what it is indeed trying to say, then why is it even mentioned at all? This statement would be true for all laws, so it becomes as trivial as mentioning that the Act is written in English. Or is there something in the Act itself that pertains directly to Settlement, or vice versa? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL..I just came across this prose too. What ridiculous stilted pomposity! The lead has to be re-written completely by someone who does not fabulate day and night about Commonwealth Realms, Crowns and Thrones. --Lubiesque (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a fairly significant point that Canada (for example) cannot change the law regarding who is its own monarch without acting in consultation with the other nations who share its monarch. This point is more relevant to the Act of Settlement than it is for most UK laws. On the other hand, I don't know that that point needs to be in the LEAD. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just cut out some of the fluff you were complaining about, and I added several other paragraphs to the lead so that it better summarizes the whole article. Perhaps it's better now? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reinserted a brief sentence about the act's having been separated into identical but distinct copies in some Commonwealth realms. It seems important to make that clear, so as to not mislead readers into thinking the act today remains only a British law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work all, the new LEAD is much better, IMHO. Kudos especially to BlueMoonlet. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Act of Settlement and the Nationality Bar in the British Civil Service, et al.[edit]

I would most certainly not like to be "cocky", but this is first and foremost, although not solely, one of my country's current legislation, more so than a mere, simple piece of history in the history of the humankind, or anything else.

My request, be that as it may, at the minimum, is that the words "The role of foreigners in the British government was at one time addressed by the act, but subsequent laws have rendered those clauses dormant" – for it is obvious that it is factually incorrect – for in fact the clause is not in fact dormant, but in a sense still partially active – must be struck out.

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – as it is also in the United States of America – there is a bar, or prohibition, on the formal employment of aliens, or foreigners, in the British case, those without British nationality or British citizenship, into what we now called the Civil Service of the Ministries and Departments of Government, as what we now call civil servants, as well as the assumption or exercise of military, judicial, public or political functions or office, as well as the receipt of military commissions as officers of the Crown's Armed Forces, and the very statutory or legal basis or justification for such a bar or prohibition is indeed no other than the fifth paragraph of Section III of the Act of Settlement (O.S. 1700) [5].

There is a general statutory prohibition on the employment of aliens in the Civil Service. (1) An alien is any person who is not a British or Commonwealth citizen, a British protected person or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. (2)

1. [The] Act of Settlement 1700, s.3; Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919, s. 6.

2. See paragraphs 28 to 39 for further information on the definition of British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens, and British protected persons.

"The Civil Service Nationality Rules" (Annex A), Guidance, Cabinet Office. Released under and in pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36), September 2011. Page 2. [6]

It is only dormant – an error probably perpetuated by a Britisher or a Briton, perhaps himself not of native stock – in the sense that the clause now no longer mean what it is, or what it originally was, intended or supposed to mean or read, for the fact that an amendment – without altering or modifying the text of (that is to say, without inserting new or removing existing words into or from) the Act of Settlement – by Part Two, Section Three, Sub-section Two (now repealed) [7], of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 (c. 17) (Regnal. 4 and 5 Geo. 5) [8] ("Section 3 of the Act of Settlement (which disqualifies naturalized aliens from holding certain offices) shall have effect as if the words " naturalized or " were omitted therefrom."), meant that naturalised (or naturalized, both spellings used interchangeably in the United Kingdom before the end of the Second World War) British subjects now equated ( = ), to and for all intents and purposes in the eyes of the law and of the State, "denizens of English descent or parentage", all but in name; that is to say, if you were a naturalised subject, you were now treated as if you were, in the subjunctive, "denizens of English descent or parentage".

That citizens from other parts of the British Commonwealth and Commonwealth of Nations, that citizens of the Republic of Ireland, that citizens from other parts of the European Union, that subjects and citizens of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, in the European Free Trade Association, or the E.F.T.A. (EFTA), and of the Swiss Confederation (or Switzerland), also in the European Free Trade Association, as well as that citizens and subjects of Turkey, are all in fact also eligible – after meeting certain conditions, and with a few restrictions – is governed by separate legislation and is beyond the scope of this current discussion.

-- KC9TV 09:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see your point as questioning the clause "subsequent laws have rendered those clauses dormant." I think you could have made your point with much less text, and certainly without casting aspersions on the nationality of other Wikipedia editors.
Given the lack of sources to attest to the complete dormancy of the provisions in question, I agree that the language should at least be made more vague on the point. I have rephrased it, and I hope you find this to be an improvement. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a quick note, after I posted the above, KC9TV shortened his/her post, which ameliorates my criticism of its length. However, s/he did not make it clear whether my response was satisfactory. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The words "naturalized or" were removed by the Status of Aliens Act 1914. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/III#reference-c950584. It is not "partially active" as KC9TV said above. Count Truthstein (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph in lead[edit]

Anyone who becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, becomes disqualified to inherit the thrones under the Act of Settlement. The act also placed limits both on the role of foreigners in the British government and the power of the monarch with respect to parliament, though some of those provisions have been altered by subsequent legislation.

This paragraph was recently rewritten by Miesianiacal (talk · contribs) with the summary "(c/e: multiple thrones; parliament not a proper noun)". I have no objection to the overall restructuring, but I dispute each of the points explicitly mentioned!

  • Before the Union, the Act affected the single throne of England; after the Union, the Act affected the single throne of Great Britain.
  • If parliament is not a proper noun, it ought to be the parliament.

—Tamfang (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call my edit a "rewriting". Regardless, I don't understand your objections. There is more than one throne affected by the Act of Settlement; 16, to be precise. "Parliament" is not a proper noun; it is not the proper name of anything, nor does it even refer to a specific parliament, since, as with the thrones, the monarch is part of more than one parliament; many more than 16. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the parliaments, then, or each parliament. — Are all the provisions of the AoS applicable to all the Commonwealth Realms? —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like that might be better.
And yes, the Act of Settlement is a applicable in all the realms. That is also explained in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of the lead says "... the Act of Settlement remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to not only the throne of the United Kingdom, but also to those of the other Commonwealth realms ...," but where does it say anything about the applicability in the Other Realms of provisions other than those concerning the succession? —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the law is applicable in a country, all of the law is applicable, not just parts of it (unless other laws in that country or specific circumstances render redundant parts of said law). --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still have no knowledge of the mechanism by which the AoS applies to the respective realms. Is all pre-independence legislation automatically incorporated into a new state's laws? Does each one have an Act duplicating the AoS, or incorporating it by reference, in whole or in part? For all I know, the Other Realms have laws saying only "Those provisions of the English Act of Settlement 1701 that concern the succession of monarchs shall apply here." —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Canada, the whole act was incorporated verbatim into the country's constitution. I don't know about the other realms except that some, apparently, defer to the act as a British law, though any change the British parliament makes to the AoS wouldn't have effect in any of those realms because of the Statute of Westminster.
Anyway, what's the problem? The lead only talks about the AoS and succession in relation to the UK and the other Commonwealth realms. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think both these issues can be addressed by paying proper attention to verb tense. I chose the tenses in this paragraph deliberately.

The first sentence is in the present tense and is meant to refer to the Act's current effect on the succession. I used the singular "throne", I suppose in a somewhat metaphorical sense to refer to the general office of monarch, but I don't greatly object to the plural.

The second sentence is in the past tense. Whatever the current effect of these provisions may be (if any) is much less interesting, it seems to me, than what they were intended to do in the first place. With that in mind, there is only one relevant parliament, which is that of England/GB/UK, so I would favor using "Parliament" as a proper noun. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is the English/British/UK parliament in a historical sense, the word "parliament" still does not deserve to have its "p" capitalised. "Parliament of England" is a proper noun; "parliament", even if it refers to the Parliament of England, is not. See WP:MOSCAPS#Institutions. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we added the word "the," then I agree that "parliament" would be a generic word (per WP:MOSCAPS#Institutions as you cited), and properly uncapitalized. Without the word "the," however, "Parliament" is shorthand for "Parliament of the United Kingdom" (or of whatever) and is the name of an institution (again per WP:MOSCAPS#Institutions) and thus capitalized. This is very common usage; see, for example, Member of Parliament or Houses of Parliament. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where the MoS justifies what you suggest. In fact, it very clearly says such a thing is incorrect. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the part that "clearly says such a thing is incorrect." It seems very sensible to me, and I'm clearly not the only one who thinks so. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where it says "Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences." --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my posted dated 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC). We agree that "the Parliament" would be incorrect, as the word is generic in that case. But without the word "the," it is the name of an institution (specifically, it's a shorthand for the full name). This is also covered in the very same section of the MoS. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The Parliament" isn't the name of any institution in the UK, though; there is "the Parliament of Scotland", "the Parliament of the United Kingdom", etc. I've made a slight adjustment to the lead that both specifies which parliament is being referred to and keeps "parlaiment" with a capital "p". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is clearly incorrect — Parliament or the parliament? —Tamfang (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

An editor has removed a "see also" link to Proclamation of accession of Elizabeth II, mistakenly asserting "unrelated", which suggests a failure to have noticed that much of the article is composed of information under titles: 3 Effects of the Act 3.1 Kingdom of Great Britain 3.2 Succession to the Crown 3.3 Removal from the succession 3.4 The abdication of 1936 4 Present status 5 Amendment proposals, and that the content of the Proclamation article is concerned with the most recent operation of the Act of Settlement, and describes a stage in the development among the realms leading to the present amendment proposals. Hardly unrelated. Qexigator (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there was any "mistake", it was to say "unrelated", rather than "so distantly related as to be essentially unrelated".
I don't understand your argument for inclusion of that link. However, it needn't be here because the AoS has governed and will govern the accession of many more monarchs than Elizabeth II. The more general description of the practice of proclaiming a new sovereign is covered at Succession to the British throne, which is already in the 'See also' section here. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That does not meet the critical point mentioned above: that the Proclamation article manifestly describes a stage in the development among the several realms which has led to the intent of the parties to the Perth Agreement and the management of the legislative processes for which each government is responsible under the Crown, according to the manner in which the law of Great Btiain/UK is deemed, under the local law, to have been received. It concerns the particular manner in which the general was applied at the last operation of the AoS, of which those responsible for carrying on the business of the Queen's government (and if it comes to judicial proceedings those responsible for hearing and determining the issue), will not be ignorant. Further, the supposition that AoS will govern the accession of many more monarchs than Elizabeth II is nothing but idle conjecture in a changing world, which suggests that your notion of what is remote is not well enough considered to warrant the peremptory edit that you made. Qexigator (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Get off your high horse. The "critical point" has been deemed to be critical by nobody but yourself. In order to inflate its importance, you're deliberately ignoring the purpose of 'See also' sections. Hint: They're not a place to dump a link to every article on even the most distantly related subject. The proclamation of Elizabeth's accession is not directly related to the focus of this page; the Perth Agreement is itself only a matter related to the Act of Settlement and the proclamations in 1952 are among hundreds of events in history prior to the agreement of the realm prime ministers in Perth. A proclamation is issued every time the Act of Settlement is "operated"; Elizabeth's was not special in that regard. A link to the article containing information on the proclamation that follows the "operation" of the AoS is already present. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the height of any heraldic or other beast your care to mention, in my view for reasons already given the significance of Proc. E II should not be underestimated, in the way you seem to be committed to. Adding it as a "See also" is the simplest way of letting any serious student or inquirer be sufficiently informed, while avoiding writing further text, which may be of less immediate interest to a more casual reader. Qexigator (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reiterate: The proclamations of the accession of Elizabeth II are, at best, of tertiary relation to the subject of this article. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concrete facts of Proc EII must be more telling than the abstract opinions of Toffoli (of Canadian Royal Heritage Trust)[9],[10] or other commentators, but, as Toffoli has been keen to point out (as cited in the Proc. article[11] [12]), on that last occasion Canada's was the first of the proclamations, and, like S.Africa, included "...of Ireland...Queen" which the other proclamations did not. There always were and will be uncertainties, contingencies, known unknowns: about mortality and what will have been written in the Grim Reaper's book; about the sequence of events determining the identity of the heir apparent at the time of the next demise; and about the course of political events locally or affecting the Commonwealth as a whole. Annexation, rebellion, secession, anarchy? But if it is assumed that disruptive acts or events will not have deflected the accession to the Briish throne or to the throne of the realm of Canada, when the time comes the law of Canada which is now effective will, unless it has been changed, be operative on the happening of the next demise and accession, and the responsible office-holders at that time will act accordingly, dissenting academics, commentators, Wikipedia editors or others notwithstanding. The then government, with a Governor-General in office or not, will have responsibility for proceeding as they deem fit, and may issue a proclamation which differs from that of the United Kingdom. They could decide to adopt what is now a dissenting opinion. Qexigator (talk) 10:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

"Roman Catholic" or "Catholic"?[edit]

In the lead, and elsewhere, a recent edit[13] has changed "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". This is against longstanding consensus, and contrary to current practice which refers to "Roman Catholic" in connection with succession to the Crown, as in s.2 of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which reads: "Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic - (1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith. (2)..."[14]. Qexigator (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the word Roman in Roman Catholic is crucial. There is a reason why the Act refers to "Papists". Not all Catholics are "Papists". See also these two edits, which may be related to the one we're discussing here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and, for the avoidance of doubt encyclopediacally, per Papist: ...referring to the Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, practices, or adherents. The term was coined during the English Reformation to denote a person whose loyalties were to the Pope, rather than to the Church of England. Over time, however, the term came to mean one who supported Papal authority over all Christians; it thus entered widespread use, especially among Anglicans and Presbyterians. Qexigator (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's also a matter of NPOV violation, in that allowing one denomination to exclusively appropriate a term ("catholic") that is also used by several others effectively involves us choosing who the "real" catholics are. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also per Catholicism: For many the term usually refers to Christians and churches...in full communion with the Holy See...many others use the term to refer to other churches with historical continuity from the first millennium. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, too, that every Christian church uses the Nicene Creed. It contains the phrase ‘I believe in one Catholic, and Apostolic Church’.

Catholic, as it is used in the Nicene Creed, means universal. The church is a reality that is pertinent to everyone universally. There is no one to whom the church cannot minister and to whom its message cannot reach. Blocked for none, the church’s roles are full of sinners of all stripes, their admission secured by the stripes that Jesus Christ bore. That is a basic doctrine of the faith.

The Church of Rome calls itself ‘the Catholic Church’. It is, but so are all the others. So, non- members often call it the ‘Roman Catholic Church’. This is something of a fudge, but seems the best way to be avoid confusion. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8D62:4BC2:F384:4F8F (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology and meaning of "settlement"[edit]

It is possible that "settlement" was meant in the sense of restricting inheritance of property (in this case, the crown), and not in the sense of "settling" or resolving some problem or issue. See Settlement (trust), Settled Land Acts and Fee tail. Anybody have any proof/disproof of this which could go in the article? Count Truthstein (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of Primogeniture - 2013[edit]

This article notes the debate in 2010 that happened with William and Kate's marriage about the possible end of primogeniture. Nowhere in it does it seem to note that these provisions of the Act of Settlement where overturned in 2013, before the birth of Kate's first child in Canada, the United Kingdom, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and that there was an agreement in principle with the other realms to change the law retrospectively[15] - (as a Canadian this is what I remembered about the UK and Canada).

Since this wikipedia article is primarily about the act itself and not changes made to it 312 years later I'm not sure, how or where this should be noted. I'm also not really interested in researching which of the other common wealth realms followed through and which may not have, and when these follow throughs happened. Any suggestions would be very much appreciated. Jethro 82 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No changes to the succession have been implemented in any country. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Commonwealth realms, the law is not yet changed by a newspaper headline or the populist rhetoric of a politician, even one who is the monarch's first minister. This and connected articles are addressed to readers who are likely to be interested in the content and in the expectation that some may be sufficiently so as to follow some of the links.[16] --Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


George I of Great Britain[edit]

Parliment’s axing of all the Roman Catholics from the line of succession caused fifty-six people to be passed over to get to this unexpected choice. George I was once described as “some old rubbish got from somewhere to stop up a hole in the Constitution”. I think this would be a good addition to the article, but can not find the source. Does anyone recognise it? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8D62:4BC2:F384:4F8F (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Act of Settlement 1701. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Act of Settlement 1701. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Act of Settlement 1701. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replace reference in section on Opposition[edit]

No problem with the addition but the reference provided in the original edit uses a source written by the editor, which is not available to the public. So I've retained the basic input and provided a new, third party reference.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

The clause tagged as dubious in the section about Australia is contradicted by the words which immediately follow. Can somebody check the cited source to check what Anne Twomey was really saying? Richard75 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1701 act of succession[edit]

How could the 1791 act òf succession be passed to Scotland after the act of union. A 95.149.95.180 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

House of Stuart succession image[edit]

The image needs correction, to bring into consistency. James II of England, should be James II of England & James VII of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch constitution[edit]

with all respect, Mr. Hilton is wrong where he states that the Dutch king has to be protestant. Our written constitution is strictly neutral where religion (and oaths) are concerned. Faithfully yours, Robert Prummel, Groningen in the Netjerlands. 2001:1C01:3B06:1900:CCBD:9C06:20D1:9915 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Act_of_Settlement_1701&oldid=1216890904"