William Rees-Mogg: Reform the monarchy? Let's wait for a century
[William Rees-Mogg has had a distinguished career with The Times and The Sunday Times.]
The Act of Settlement 1701 is a central constitutional statute; it determines the succession to the Crown of England. As the historian Andrew Roberts has pointed out, it has been a success.
In the three centuries since it was enacted, the UK has led the global industrial and scientific revolution, emerged victorious from five world wars, built and liquidated an empire comparable to that of Ancient Rome, and retained the settled succession to the throne. Americans often point to 1776 as the foundation date of their democratic republic; 1701 is the foundation date of our modern monarchy, which evolved into a democratic monarchy.
However, the Act of Settlement is an unusual document. The Queen's title to the throne is derived from her descent from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. Sophia herself died in 1714, only six weeks before the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne. The first monarch to succeed under the Act of Settlement was Sophia's son George I; Elizabeth II is his successor and direct heir.
In 1701 the King, William III, and Parliament were concerned to protect the Protestant succession to the throne against a threat of French and Catholic influence. The Tories had a majority in the 1701 Parliament, but few people were willing to go back to the old Pretender or the Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty. The Act of Settlement therefore provided that no future monarch should be a Roman Catholic or married to one. That created the discrimination against Catholics that causes offence.
There was no alteration in the 1701 Act to the existing rules governing the succession of women to the throne. In the absence of a direct male heir, a royal princess can succeed, but a younger brother has seniority over an elder sister.
There are therefore two discriminations, one in the Act of Settlement against Catholics and one that affects women. That tradition goes back at least as far as the accession of Edward VI in 1547. Edward was a younger brother with two elder sisters living, Mary and Elizabeth; he was also the champion of the Protestant cause.
The Prime Minister has recently discussed the removal of these anomalies with the Queen. There seems to be widespread agreement that they cannot logically be defended. It is doubtful whether they are compatible with European human rights legislation. It is inconceivable nowadays that any new Act should include either religious or sexual discrimination. The question is whether the Act of Settlement ought now to be amended to bring it into line with human rights law...
Read entire article at Times (UK)
The Act of Settlement 1701 is a central constitutional statute; it determines the succession to the Crown of England. As the historian Andrew Roberts has pointed out, it has been a success.
In the three centuries since it was enacted, the UK has led the global industrial and scientific revolution, emerged victorious from five world wars, built and liquidated an empire comparable to that of Ancient Rome, and retained the settled succession to the throne. Americans often point to 1776 as the foundation date of their democratic republic; 1701 is the foundation date of our modern monarchy, which evolved into a democratic monarchy.
However, the Act of Settlement is an unusual document. The Queen's title to the throne is derived from her descent from the Electress Sophia of Hanover. Sophia herself died in 1714, only six weeks before the last Stuart monarch, Queen Anne. The first monarch to succeed under the Act of Settlement was Sophia's son George I; Elizabeth II is his successor and direct heir.
In 1701 the King, William III, and Parliament were concerned to protect the Protestant succession to the throne against a threat of French and Catholic influence. The Tories had a majority in the 1701 Parliament, but few people were willing to go back to the old Pretender or the Roman Catholic Stuart dynasty. The Act of Settlement therefore provided that no future monarch should be a Roman Catholic or married to one. That created the discrimination against Catholics that causes offence.
There was no alteration in the 1701 Act to the existing rules governing the succession of women to the throne. In the absence of a direct male heir, a royal princess can succeed, but a younger brother has seniority over an elder sister.
There are therefore two discriminations, one in the Act of Settlement against Catholics and one that affects women. That tradition goes back at least as far as the accession of Edward VI in 1547. Edward was a younger brother with two elder sisters living, Mary and Elizabeth; he was also the champion of the Protestant cause.
The Prime Minister has recently discussed the removal of these anomalies with the Queen. There seems to be widespread agreement that they cannot logically be defended. It is doubtful whether they are compatible with European human rights legislation. It is inconceivable nowadays that any new Act should include either religious or sexual discrimination. The question is whether the Act of Settlement ought now to be amended to bring it into line with human rights law...