Philip Johnston: Is it time to scrap the Act of Settlement?
[Philip Johnston has been with the Daily Telegraph for 20 years. He is currently assistant editor and leader writer and was previously home affairs editor and chief political correspondent.]
Gordon Brown is reportedly preparing legislation to repeal the Act of Settlement during the fourth term of a Labour government. The give away as to the likelihood of this happening is at the end of the sentence: the prospect of Labour winning a fourth term is about as great as the return of the Jacobite Pretender.
In fact, Mr Brown was planning to scrap the Act - which prevents Catholics ascending to the throne - shortly after he took over as prime minister in July last year. He did unveil a range of piecemeal constitutional reforms but backed away from the big one. It was an early sign of the dithering that would reach its apogee when he ducked out of holding a general election.
But Mr Brown might well have been persuaded that however laudable an idea - why, in this day and age, should there be such overt discrimination against Roman Catholics? - it is sometimes better to stop picking away at the nation's constitutional fabric.
Tony Blair discovered this when he thought what a good wheeze it would be to scrap the ancient office of Lord Chancellor - all that pomp and circumstance, those wigs and stockings on a man: how un-modern. The only problem, as Labour discovered, is that so much of Britain's painstakingly constructed constitutional settlement is interlinked that when one stitch is removed the damage caused can be out of all proportion to the intended effect.
The same could happen with the Act of Settlement. It is a discriminatory piece of legislation that has no place on the Statute Book. But the current heir to the throne is not planning to marry a Catholic and the issue would only arise if William or Harry decided to take a Catholic bride, at which point it could be addressed.
Is Mr Brown really planning to tie up parliament in knots for months trying to unravel more of the constitution? He backed away last year despite strong indications that preparations were well advanced for an historic announcement. It was said that the Queen had been informed and given her approval.
Instead, Mr Brown demurred and asked a Labour MP Chris Bryant to look further into the issue and report back. He has now done so and, unsurprisingly, recommends an end to three centuries of institutionalised discrimination against Catholics.
The Act of Settlement of June 12, 1701, was one of the final measures of the reign of William III and embedded the outcome of the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689. It laid down that Anne, the daughter of the Duke of York, later James II, could succeed to the throne.
However, because she had no surviving children, it decreed that she must pass on the succession to her cousin Princess Sophia, the Electress of Hanover, granddaughter to James I.
It states that no sovereign "shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist". It also requires that any sovereign shall be in communion with the Church of England.
Queen Anne outlived Sophia of Hanover, so the crown passed to the Elector of Hanover, who became George I, by-passing the Stuarts, who had a better hereditary claim to the throne.
While it is seen as a gratuitous insult to Catholics, the main purpose of the Act was to entrench the concept of constitutional monarchy after the instability of the previous century.
This is no longer in question and many people think the Act cannot continue in an era of human rights conventions and modern royals...
Read entire article at Telegraph (UK)
Gordon Brown is reportedly preparing legislation to repeal the Act of Settlement during the fourth term of a Labour government. The give away as to the likelihood of this happening is at the end of the sentence: the prospect of Labour winning a fourth term is about as great as the return of the Jacobite Pretender.
In fact, Mr Brown was planning to scrap the Act - which prevents Catholics ascending to the throne - shortly after he took over as prime minister in July last year. He did unveil a range of piecemeal constitutional reforms but backed away from the big one. It was an early sign of the dithering that would reach its apogee when he ducked out of holding a general election.
But Mr Brown might well have been persuaded that however laudable an idea - why, in this day and age, should there be such overt discrimination against Roman Catholics? - it is sometimes better to stop picking away at the nation's constitutional fabric.
Tony Blair discovered this when he thought what a good wheeze it would be to scrap the ancient office of Lord Chancellor - all that pomp and circumstance, those wigs and stockings on a man: how un-modern. The only problem, as Labour discovered, is that so much of Britain's painstakingly constructed constitutional settlement is interlinked that when one stitch is removed the damage caused can be out of all proportion to the intended effect.
The same could happen with the Act of Settlement. It is a discriminatory piece of legislation that has no place on the Statute Book. But the current heir to the throne is not planning to marry a Catholic and the issue would only arise if William or Harry decided to take a Catholic bride, at which point it could be addressed.
Is Mr Brown really planning to tie up parliament in knots for months trying to unravel more of the constitution? He backed away last year despite strong indications that preparations were well advanced for an historic announcement. It was said that the Queen had been informed and given her approval.
Instead, Mr Brown demurred and asked a Labour MP Chris Bryant to look further into the issue and report back. He has now done so and, unsurprisingly, recommends an end to three centuries of institutionalised discrimination against Catholics.
The Act of Settlement of June 12, 1701, was one of the final measures of the reign of William III and embedded the outcome of the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689. It laid down that Anne, the daughter of the Duke of York, later James II, could succeed to the throne.
However, because she had no surviving children, it decreed that she must pass on the succession to her cousin Princess Sophia, the Electress of Hanover, granddaughter to James I.
It states that no sovereign "shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist". It also requires that any sovereign shall be in communion with the Church of England.
Queen Anne outlived Sophia of Hanover, so the crown passed to the Elector of Hanover, who became George I, by-passing the Stuarts, who had a better hereditary claim to the throne.
While it is seen as a gratuitous insult to Catholics, the main purpose of the Act was to entrench the concept of constitutional monarchy after the instability of the previous century.
This is no longer in question and many people think the Act cannot continue in an era of human rights conventions and modern royals...