Pope Benedict XVI is set to visit the UK this September
Posted on 09/02/2010 6:18:17 AM PDT by NYer
The public is being urged to back a campaign to scrap a 300-year-old law which prohibits Catholics ascending the throne, ahead of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Britain next month.
The Coalition Government is currently asking voters to nominate laws which they think restrict civil liberties and should be abolished or amended.
The suggestions will form the basis of the so-called Freedom Bill, announced with much fanfare by Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, earlier this year.
At the same time, however, ministers have said that they have no plans to change the Act of Settlement, which also bars members of the Royal family marrying Catholics.
Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP for the Western Isles, has called for a mass online vote for a change in the law, which he denounced as “state sectarianism”, ahead of the Pope’s visit.
Introduced in 1701, the Act of Settlement states that no sovereign “shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist”.
The exclusion of Catholics was designed to ensure a stable monarchy, after decades of rows over the state religion.
More than three centuries since its inception, it continues to affect the Royal family.
In 1978, Prince Michael of Kent, the Queen’s cousin, lost his place in the line of succession after marrying a Catholic.
Just two years ago, Autumn Kelly, a Canadian and the new wife of Peter Phillips, the Queen’s grandson, renounced her Catholic faith to allow her husband to remain in succession.
Before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron indicated that he would like to see the Act changed.
But within weeks of the coalition taking charge in May, it was announced that there were “no current plans” to amend it.
This triggered a furious re-action from Scottish Catholic leaders, who accused ministers of backtracking.
Cardinal Keith O’Brien, the leader of Scotland’s Catholics, and Joseph Devine, the Bishop of Motherwell, both accused Mr Cameron of discrimination and “arrogance” over the decision.
With the Pope’s visit due to start in just over a fortnight, Mr MacNeil said that now was the time for the law to be changed.
“The Act of Settlement represents clear institutional discrimination against millions of our fellow citizens, and the Coalition Government’s refusal to consider its repeal is lamentable,” he said.
“Nick Clegg has lauded the Freedom Bill, and fancies himself as a great reformer, but his words are not matched by actions or even intentions.
“There is no better example of an outdated law that should be removed from the statute book and, with Pope Benedict visiting next month, we need to put this on the agenda,” added Mr MacNeil. “This is an issue of cross-party and cross-faith concern.
“The Act is state sectarianism and has no place in a modern society.”
He added that there had been a groundswell of support for a repeal of the Act in recent years, including from the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and the Catholic Church in Scotland.
“Changing the Act of Settlement allows us to deal with a fundamental issue of discrimination; it enables us to state clearly that discrimination is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in a modern country,” he said.
A poster campaign demanding that the Catholic Church ordains women has been launched to coincide with the Pope’s visit to Britain.
Posters with the slogan Pope Benedict Ordain Women Now! will be displayed on buses in central London for a month.
The group Catholic Women’s Ordination (CWO) is behind the campaign. Spokeswoman Pat Brown claimed the Church was attempting to gag Catholics over the issue.
She claimed a number of priests are members of the campaign but keep this secret for fear of disciplinary action.
Ms Brown added that she knew people who worked for the Catholic Church, including a teacher in Catholic school, who were told to end their membership of CWO. “We are forbidden from discussing this issue in public; we cannot hold debates in church halls for example,” Ms Brown said.
“This is why we are forced to take such extreme measures.
“Obviously, we think women should be ordained, we believe women are called, but we think that there should be discussion about it.”
Makes sense as a strategy.
The Anglicans began ordaining women and attendance at Sunday service halved within 20 years.
The Protestant Succession is vital to the security of Great Britain. Without it, the King of France may be able to influence or control the British state.
Wait, there is no Bourbon king in France any more....
Normally, when a newspaper is banned, any attempt to post an article generates a “blocked” message. Perhaps the newspaper has changed its policy.
The reality is that changing the laws of succession is far more difficult than it sounds.
The Act of Settlement of 1701 is more or less the structure on which the UK and the rest of the British Commonwealth is based. Key to this is the belief that the UK and the Commonwealth have a single monarch.
To change the laws of succession would require the parliaments of ALL of the nations to agree. The British probably wouldn’t have a huge problem with it, the Scottish might, the Canadians would be fine with it and the Australians and Zew Zealanders would probably wonder what all the fuss was about. The bottom line is that it’s more than just simply saying, “It’s a stupid law, let’s change it.”
What’s most likely to prompt a change is when circumstances arise with someone who could realistically take the throne. It’s unlikely that Prince Charles would ever become a Catholic, but it’s entirely possible that Prince William or Prince Harry could either become a Catholic or marry one and if this were to happen the governments would have no choice but to take a look at the situation.
In my opinion, the scenario that’s more likely to get the laws of succession addressed is if Prince William has a daughter and then a son because people consider the preference of males every bit as outdated as the rejection of Catholics. In the last three centuries there has not been a situation where a female was passed over for a male, but it’s bound to happen sooner or later.
I take this back, Queen Victoria's oldest child was her daughter Victoria. However, Victoria was married to Kaiser Frederick III and her son was Wilhelm II, so NOBODY was going to suggest that she or her descendants should have preference to the British throne over Edward VII.
I think they should the end the ban this is 21th Century NYer beside UK was F***k up country thanks to Henry VIII
I’m iffy on changing the Act of Settlement.
See what I wrote in posts 7 and 8.
Amending the Act of Settlement is far to complicated without an actual reason. When it affects someone who could realistically become king or queen (like Prince Charles, Prince Andrew or their children), it will probably be addressed.
I'm iffy about it for different reasons.
First, it implies the disestablishment of the Church of England. I'm definitely iffy on that.
Second, if folks are going to change the Act of Settlement, some folks are going to say, why not just do away with the monarch altogether? I don't think that's a good idea, either.
I believe that one of the causes of World War II was the destruction of much of the traditional societal, political and cultural structure in Europe after World War I. One wonders whether the Weimar Republic would have been as weak if it had standing behind it a kaiser. One wonders whether someone like Hitler could have occupied the power vacuum if there had still been a German monarchy, whether that vacuum would have existed in the same way.
Would the Austrians have pined for Anschluss, incorporation into the greater German empire, if they were still part of an Austrian empire?
Established churches, monarchies, rites of succession, are pieces of and symbols of the culture and soul of some societies. Dismantling them may result in dismantling the nation.
Tony Blair did enough of that sort of thing to the United Kingdom already.
No need for anyone to finish the job.
sitetest
Excellent post, you make a lot of great points.
Italy had a king, but Il Duce still came to power.
That's true, but the whole construct of “Italy” was only some decades old by that point.
On the other hand, although the modern German state got its start in the late 19th century, there had been German empires and pan-German confederacies going back some centuries by that point.
As well, I'm not arguing that there is an iron rule of society that monarchies always and everywhere protect their nations from tyranny. Just that dismantling things like monarchies and established churches tends to destabilize societies and nations.
sitetest
The two events are not neccesarily connected. There are a lot of reasons why attendance at Sunday services has halved over the last two decades. Ordaining women is not even close to being the major one.
The real answer is to disestablish the CofE. It would get rid of this stick that the Humanists beat us with, it would enable Catholics to succeed, it would even be good for the CofE.
Wait, there is no Bourbon king in France any more....
LOL! It is a pretty outdated law -- by a few hundred years.
I understand your points, and I appreciate there are risks to societal cohesion with this, but then there are risks with not changing too. In fact there are certainties with not changing. The political, religious and social conditions that led to the act of settlement don’t have a lot of significance now, and are becoming more and more irrelevant with each year that passes.
On the contrary, see post #17
I agree, there is the potential for too many complications arising from getting all the commonwealth nations to agree to identical change to the rules of succession. Besides, Parliamentary time is too precious given the current situation to make a pointless symbolic gesture that will not make any real difference to anything. I agree that it is an outdated law, but we really have better things to do than waste our time changing it...
Maybe. I'm looking at it from some distance. But from that distance, to me, it looks like Britain has lost a lot of its Britishness.
The dissolution of the United Kingdom may be inevitable, but I think that the disestablishment of the Church of England and the subsequent demise of the monarchy will seal and accelerate that fate.
sitetest
People today are very wary of "big solutions" and have an innate (and sadly often justifiable) suspicion of the "powers that be". Linking the Church to the State was a good idea 300 years back, but with the demise of "Christendom" its more like a weight around the neck of the church.
“I don't think that disestablishing the Cof E will lead to the demise of the monarchy.”
All by itself, you're probably right. It's only one more stone being removed from the foundation of the monarchy and of British society. But as stones go, it's a pretty big one all on its own.
“If anything, I think it will strengthen both institutions.”
If the Church of England were primarily (or even secondarily) a religious institution, it would at least strengthen the Church of England. But the Church of England is a political thing tied to the monarchy and tied to the identity of the nation. That identity is already under brutal assault from immigration that was planned secretly by the government to undermine national identity, from Sharia-imposing Islamists, from moron prime ministers further reducing Britons from freemen to clients of the nanny state and otherwise tinkering with things British, etc.
In letting go of the established church, British society would be jettisoning a significant symbol of the unity of British society, no matter how decayed the symbol has become.
If one asserts that disestablishment is inevitable because the church is no longer a viable symbol of British society, then one also argues that the dissolution of the British nation is also inevitable (along with the monarchy and other institutions symbolic of British nationhood). As I stated previously, the United Kingdom will then just devolve to several sub-national jurisdictions of the pan-European tyranny.
sitetest
But the Church of England is primarily a religious institution. Or rather it should be. The fact that it is percieved to be a "political thing tied to the monarchy and the identity of the nation" is a major reason why it is failing. Churches exist primarily to serve God, not the needs of any Human institution - even one as an important as the British State. This is a hard thing to put down on a site like this, where most people care very deeply about their country, be it the UK, the US, Australia or wherever, but it's ultimately a question of loyalty. There's nothing wrong with being patriotic, but are you a citizen of Heaven or a citizen of some earthly nation? Happily, it's possible to be both most of the time. However, a "church" that serves a nation (no matter how benign) rather than its God is one that, frankly, is going to fail.
“But the Church of England is primarily a religious institution. Or rather it should be.”
As far as I can see, it has always been first a political institution. Ideally, Henry VIII never should have done what he did. And then, the Church would have remained the Church in England rather than becoming the Church of England, and hence, becoming a political tool of the monarchy. And then, a symbol of the unity of the British nation.
But Henry did what he did and that's that. So all we can do is make the best of the history that exists.
At some point, the Church of England - and the British monarchy - AND the British nation - will fail. None of them are among the permanent things. But for a very long time, these things have done more good in the world than harm, and if they can be preserved for a while longer, perhaps they may continue to serve the world for some time to come.
To disestablish the Church of England is a tacit admission that the Church of England has failed, and that the monarchy and British nationhood are not far behind. That may be the most accurate reading of events. But I hope it isn't.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.