BY Ian Dunn | October 21 | 
4 COMMENTS 
print
Caution over Act of Settlement proposals
— PM’s plans to change the anti-Catholic act falls short, says Scottish Church spokesman
A spokesman for the Church in Scotland has greeted David Cameron’s proposed changes to the Act of Settlement with caution as they fall short of allowing a Catholic to become the British head of state.
The Prime Minister (right) announced his plans last week, ahead of the Commonwealth leaders’ summit in Australia later this month. He said the ban on anyone married to a Catholic becoming monarch was an ‘historical anomaly’ and could not ‘continue to be justified.’
Mr Cameron has shared his royal succession proposals with the 15 other countries that have the queen as their monarch but he is not proposing changing the ban on monarchs themselves being Catholic. The British monarch is also the head of the Church of England.
Scottish Church
Members of the Scottish Catholic hierarchy have been vocal in their concerns about the ‘anti-Catholic’ Act of Settlement, including Bishop Joseph Devine of Motherwell who has called for it to be repealed.
“The Act of Settlement amounts to iniquitous anti-Catholic discrimination,” Peter Kearney, director of the Catholic Media Office, said. “While a partial repeal is welcome, the continuing ban on a Catholic becoming head of state remains state-sponsored sectarianism.”
The Catholic Church in Scotland has previously stated that the Act of Settlement laws, which date back to the 17th and 18th centuries, are a ‘serious barrier to tackling problems like sectarianism and anti-Catholic bigotry in Scotland.’
Mr Kearney said earlier that the act is a serious impediment to tackling bigotry in Scotland as ‘it is difficult for a government at any level, to assert that sectarianism is wrong when the act perpetuates it.’
Repealing the act
John Deighan, the Scottish bishops’ parliamentary officer, agreed that there was a clear need for repeal of the act.
“The prevailing political views in regard to equality and discrimination increasingly make the ban on Catholic monarchs in the UK a clear anomaly,” he said. “It is hard to see how it will continue if consistency is to be implemented.”
Mr Deighan also said he hoped this change would lead to greater ones.
“The proposed change is probably a recognition to this, even if only a small one,” he said. “The whole role of faith in the political structures of our society is one which is not properly understood and Catholics continue to face hostility for expressing what are seen as Catholic views. There is still some way to go if the encouragement by Pope Benedict XVI for politics to see faith as a support rather than a danger is to be fully realised.”
Royal succession
The Prime Minister will also seek to remove the discrimination against women in the line of succession. He is proposing to scrap the rule by which male children take precedence over their sisters.
Such a move would mean that the children of Prince William and his new wife, the Earl and Countess of Strathearn, who were married earlier this year, could benefit from the planned changes even if they are born before the law is altered.
Any changes require the agreement of all 16 Commonwealth ‘realms’—the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Barbados, Grenada, Belize, St Christopher and Nevis, St Lucia, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St Vincent and the Grenadines and Papua New Guinea.
RSS Feeds
Now I wonder what is the REAL reason for this ACT of Settlement to be repealed or changed? An Act that has been in place since, what was it? 1701?
To name but a few Acts that would have to be repealed which, our Prime Minister should remember when fighting two World Wars, one of the reasons was so that this Country did not have to obey Germany’s Constitutional Laws, and now, so that we would not lose our own RIGHTS held in certain long established Constitutional Treaties and Laws which are protected.
So what is our Government looking at altering permanently?
Here are just a few. This is from the Government’s own Paper, Standard Note SN/PC/683 24 January 2011, “To bring about changes to the law would be a complex and controversial undertaking, raising major constitutional issues which would involve the amendment or repeal of a number of pieces of related legislation. Legislation that would need to be reviewed includes the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1707, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711 – I hope no one will intervene on that one — the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937.” The Act of Succession 1543. The Act of Settlement 1700 and the Act of Unions, all reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act and the Accession Declaration Act 1910. All this allegedly because of the Act of Succession and alleged discrimination re those that have accepted with grace the ancient Common Law Constitution over many recent years.
With the greatest respect, what is the REAL reason that this present temporary Prime Minister wants to remove or destroy parts of the people’s own Common Law Constitution? Rights, in the Bill of Rights 1689 that have lasted and been enjoyed over many years? No one is going to be affected regarding succession to the Crown for quite some years, unless of course some Country decides to do the same to us as has happened in Libya or unless they need to be removed for deeper and more meaningful integration into the European Union?
Why hasn’t the Prime Minister put this matter to the people of this Country before asking Commonwealth Countries? Would he really touch our great Bill of Rights-remove our RIGHTS that have stood the test of time? There would be no point in asking the Commonwealth Countries if the people of this Country said NO. Would you allow others to remove such long lasting hard won RIGHTS?
If a Catholic, female was to marry a Protestant and become King and Queen off the commonwealth what garantees are there for the success off the happy couple. What if stuff goes wrong. Married life does have its up and downs. What if prince Philip and the Queen were invited to a Catholic Christmas event.Royals on both sides would have to recite both faiths. As not to offend anybody.
Now I wonder what is the REAL reason for this ACT of Settlement to be repealed or changed? An Act that has been in place since, what was it? 1701?
To name but a few Acts that would have to be repealed which, our Prime Minister should remember when fighting two World Wars, one of the reasons was so that this Country did not have to obey Germany’s Constitutional Laws, and now, so that we would not lose our own RIGHTS held in certain long established Constitutional Treaties and Laws which are protected.
So what is our Government looking at altering permanently?
Here are just a few. This is from the Government’s own Paper, Standard Note SN/PC/683 24 January 2011, “To bring about changes to the law would be a complex and controversial undertaking, raising major constitutional issues which would involve the amendment or repeal of a number of pieces of related legislation. Legislation that would need to be reviewed includes the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland Act 1707, the Princess Sophia’s Precedence Act 1711 – I hope no one will intervene on that one — the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937.” The Act of Succession 1543. The Act of Settlement 1700 and the Act of Unions, all reinforced by the provisions of the Coronation Oath Act and the Accession Declaration Act 1910. All this allegedly because of the Act of Succession and alleged discrimination re those that have accepted with grace the ancient Common Law Constitution over many recent years.
With the greatest respect, what is the REAL reason that this present temporary Prime Minister wants to remove or destroy parts of the people’s own Common Law Constitution? Rights, in the Bill of Rights 1689 that have lasted and been enjoyed over many years? No one is going to be affected regarding succession to the Crown for quite some years, unless of course some Country decides to do the same to us as has happened in Libya or unless they need to be removed for deeper and more meaningful integration into the European Union?
Why hasn’t the Prime Minister put this matter to the people of this Country before asking Commonwealth Countries? Would he really touch our great Bill of Rights-remove our RIGHTS that have stood the test of time? There would be no point in asking the Commonwealth Countries if the people of this Country said NO. Would you allow others to remove such long lasting hard won RIGHTS?
Strange really because so many, many times the people have been told there is no Common Law Constitution.
It’s impossible for a monarch to be head of state of one nation whilst obeying the wishes of Rome. The act of settlement is not ‘sectarian’. It is common sense, and it must stay in place.