Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, strongly criticised the Act of Settlement, adding to pressure inside the Government for the law to be changed or scrapped.
Mr Straw, the Justice Secretary, earlier this year signalled that ministers are looking at abolishing the 307-year-old Act of Settlement because it is “antiquated” and discriminates against non-Protestants.
Repealing or amending the act could also pave the way for a first-born daughter of Prince William to succeed him as monarch by ending the practice of primogeniture where male heirs are given priority in the succession.
That’s just what the world needs now..more Catholic monarchs!..(so King Juan Carlos can have some company.)
I love the English and I love Britain, and as an American it is really none of my business, but I have to say: once you’ve accepted that you’re going to have a monarchy, the marginal ‘unfairness’ of primogeniture seems a little trivial.
I am so glad to hear this. My husband’s job is a bit shaky right now in this economy and the fact the throne could be open to Catholics is a big relief? What kind of resume should he send in?
Well since the Monarchy really doesn’t control the Church anymore I don’t see why a Catholic shouldn’t be on the throne! It’s not like they can turn the Church back to Catholicism as Mary did. They don”t have that kind of power any longer. So what’s the problem? I suspect that some day down the road a Monarch will marry a Muslim and well…..
Still waiting for the Imperial Grand Duchess Maria to reclaim the Romanov throne…
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Yes this change will take place but there are three reasons why it will not: (a) it raises the issue of distestablishing the Church of England. After all, there could be a Catholic monarch who was Supreme Governor of the Church of England and notionally appointing its bishops. A somewhat tricky concept. (b) To change the law would require the consent of the Commonwealth legislatures that are still Dominions ie have governors-general: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and some Caribbean islands. Who wants to open that can of worms? (c) A powerful lobby in England would ask, ‘Why stop there? Why should it be the eldest male/ who is the heir to the throne? Why not simply the first-born, even if a girl is born first followed by a boy?’ Sweden went this way and as with Sweden it would be a good time to have the change, since here in the UK we currently have a male first-born who himself has two sons, so no one would be disadvantaged. However, nothing will happen. We talk the talk, folks. And that’s as far as it goes. In so many things here.
I actually read the pre-view and stillgot it wrong. The opening sentence should read: ‘Yes this change should take place but there are three reasons why it will not.’
#6 – Hey, don’t stop there, Terry – what about the 15,000+ descendants of Charles II’s paramours who arguably have a more direct claim than the present heirs in waiting? Since marriage has now been trashed in Brave New Britain, why discriminate over bastardy?
I believe that Elizabeth II is a Christian believer but am not so sure about Charles and William. I hope that I am wrong, but in that context, I am not sure that it is so important how one labels the individual monarch’s pseudo-faith. Two issues I see: 1. to change the COE canons to remove the role of the monarch (if such still exist) and 2. what would happen at Westminster Abbey?
Re # 9
PWH,
I can’t comment on the William and Harry. But Charles has spent a great deal of time on Mt. Athos. He spends at least some time there every summer. His family has strong ties to the Orthodox Church.
His father (Prince Phillip) comes from Greece and his paternal grandmother became an Orthodox nun following the death of her husband. For his part Prince Phillip was required when he married the future Queen to convert to Anglicanism. However, in recent years he has quietly returned to the Orthodox Church.
Charles has spent so much time on Mt. Athos that it has generated more than a few rumors in the royal gossip mill. A few are pretty outlandish. But there has been a persistent rumor (which I do not believe) that Charles secretly converted to Orthodoxy. It is generally believed that he has a spiritual father on Mt. Athos who provides him with council and spiritual guidance. But of course the monks are extremely tight lipped and Mt. Athos is one of the few places where Charles really does have some privacy. Even the press can’t get near him there.
The Royal Family has a strict “no comment” policy about questions relating to Charles’ time on the Holy Mountain.
Under the mercy,
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
An [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox [/url] Christian
Ad Orientem: What proof do you have for your Athos story about Charles? I have never heard it mentioned in the UK. This could simply mean that I am ignorant of something widely known – but I would still like to know how you claim this.
Re # 11
Terry Tee,
A random selection I found on the first couple pages of a Google search…
http://tinyurl.com/6yeyvq
http://tinyurl.com/6jbcal
http://tinyurl.com/583z85
http://tinyurl.com/5rdx2x
http://tinyurl.com/5bof2m
http://tinyurl.com/63xnlq
http://tinyurl.com/5dalo6
I thank Ad Orientem but am rather underwhelmed by the evidence. Let me explain: I was a journalist before ordination. In those (pre-computer!) days newspapers kept clippings libraries. You could often trace through the stories as they developed the original kernel of fact becoming successively embroidered. The material above gives exactly one verifiable account of a visit to Athos. Then is is assumed that there are subsequent regular visits and the whole thing embellished from there onward in increasingly breathless tones. If you count the hard facts (observers named, dates given, etc) there are very few. I suspect myth-making, partly due to the excitement of eastern orthodox bloggers.