Protestant Prime Minister

The Act of Settlement only forbids the monarch marrying a Catholic, or a Catholic ascending to the throne...and that's go to be looked at afresh with a view to review.

The Prime Minister's position does not legally require him/her to be a Protestant, but since he/she appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury it has always been deemed 'prudent' that he/she should be.

However, since Gordon Brown is now wanting to relieve the Prime Minister of this responisbility, it also lifts any obections to those of any faith being appointed Prime Minister.

We have to also remember that non-protestants have been political party members in the recent past; I'm thinking specifically of Iain Duncan Smith and Charles Kennedy. If either of their parties has been elected to government during the period of their leadership, one would presume that it would not be demanded that they relinquish the leadership on the basis of their faith membership.

Reply 7

L i b

Yawn is quite correct, there is no law forbidding the PM from practising as a Roman Catholic.

Tony Blair did not convert either, he's always been a High Church Anglican. There was merely speculation that he'd convert (his wife and children are RC and the latter attend an RC school). He took communion at a Roman Catholic church with his family once, and nobody was too chuffed about that (the Catholics most of all).

Reply 8

Gilliwoo

Yawn and Lib North are correct. It's not "illegal" to be a Catholic as PM, it just wasn't traditionally expedient politics in the past. By tradition and I suppose inclination, fairly few high establishment members really are Catholic. But nowadays, I wonder if anyone apart from Howard would care if he was. Also, Blair was never a full Catholic.

Reply 9

SHAC attack!

Peter Phillips (10th in line for the throne) is marrying a catholic and there was some discussion about whether the act would be repealed for him (it probably won't) but if William or Henry found a lovely catholic girlfriend there is no doubt it would be repealed.

Reply 10

mnbgw

OP

so blair was not a catholic, its not actually illegal, but disraeli converted anyway. got it

Reply 11

SHAC attack!

Peter Phillips (10th in line for the throne) is marrying a catholic and there was some discussion about whether the act would be repealed for him (it probably won't) but if William or Henry found a lovely catholic girlfriend there is no doubt it would be repealed.

You're right, Shac; Phillips must either give up his positon in line for the throne, or his fiancee must give up her faith.

Peter Phillips, the Queen's eldest grandson and 10th in line to the throne, might have to surrender his place in the succession. Mr Phillips, 29, the son of the Princess Royal, is now engaged to Autumn Kelly, 31, a Canadian management consultant who was baptised a Catholic. The fact was not mentioned in the Buckingham Palace announcement of the engagement last week.

But in a never-repealed provision of the 1701 Act of Settlement, which enshrined the Protestant ascendancy, British monarchs and their heirs are forbidden to become or even marry Catholics.

The legislation means that either Mr Phillips must give up his place in the line of succession or Miss Kelly must formally renounce the faith into which she was baptised.

It seems that the Act of Settlement is well overdue for review when it has this impact on peoples' personal lives and happiness. Not only is it anachronistic, but also offensive to the Queen's Catholic subjects.

Interesting, Camilla Parker-Bowles was raised as a Catholic - it wasn't allowed to impede the marriage with Charles as it's the Baptism, it seems, is the obstacle, not necessarily the faith practice.

Anway, back to the thread... :wink:

Reply 12

L i b

yawn

It seems that the Act of Settlement is well overdue for review when it has this impact on peoples' personal lives and happiness.

What impact? That he can no longer say that - in the incredibly unlikely scenario of nine people dying at once - he will no longer have the slight chance of being King. Oh dear!

He obviously doesn't care much for the trappings of royalty anyway - he's never taken a title and keeps a low profile. I doubt he'll care have as much as the tabloids. Giving up a place in the 'line of succession' has no effect on him or his status in the order of precedence.

Not only is it anachronistic, but also offensive to the Queen's Catholic subjects.

Perhaps.

What do you think about the argument in favour that belief in a higher temporal authority in this manner is incompatible with holding an 'imperial' Crown as in Britain?

Reply 13

Sweyn Forkbeard

I just want to clarify on a point: Disraeli didn't convert to Protestantism because he wasn't Jewish to begin with. His father was Jewish but he knew that due to anti-Semitism his son would never be successful in politics, so he had him baptised as an Anglican. He also changed his name (it used to be D'Israeli).

Reply 14

UniOfLife

12

Will

I just want to clarify on a point: Disraeli didn't convert to Protestantism because he wasn't Jewish to begin with. His father was Jewish but he knew that due to anti-Semitism his son would never be successful in politics, so he had him baptised as an Anglican. He also changed his name (it used to be D'Israeli).

Was his mother Jewish?

Reply 15

AnythingButChardonnay

14

He was obviously a closet catholic!

Reply 16

Sweyn Forkbeard

UniOfLife

Was his mother Jewish?

Interesting point - and yes she was born Maria Basevi - the Basevis being a notable Italian-Jewish family. Disraeli therefore would have been defined as Jewish by lineage, which I'm sure is what you're getting at. However, I believe the laws excluding Jews from service in Parliament didn't really care for whether a person was regarded as Jewish by Jewish tradition or lineage - what mattered was the religion they practised. Of course Disraeli was the focus of anti-Semitism anyway (people had a tendency to emphasise his name as D'Israeli, for example), but he was legally allowed to become PM.

Reply 17

Libertin du Nord

What impact? That he can no longer say that - in the incredibly unlikely scenario of nine people dying at once - he will no longer have the slight chance of being King. Oh dear!

He obviously doesn't care much for the trappings of royalty anyway - he's never taken a title and keeps a low profile. I doubt he'll care have as much as the tabloids. Giving up a place in the 'line of succession' has no effect on him or his status in the order of precedence.

Whether or not he ever could accede to the throne or whether he wants to or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the choice of his bride means that the rights of succession are to be taken away from him. It is wrong that choosing between losing a partner or your heritage seems to be a way to limit choices of any one - royalty or not - based on differences in religion

What do you think about the argument in favour that belief in a higher temporal authority in this manner is incompatible with holding an 'imperial' Crown as in Britain?

What? Because the temporal leader of one's Church is not oneself? The queen wears an 'imperial' crown despite being subject to a higher authority than herself, albeit spiritual...it doesn't stop her being head of state and rubber stamping government decisions though...so the argument would appear to be fatuous...

The Act of Settlement was created in a time when Britain was more concerned with protecting the monarchy from so-called papists; and in this more culturally diversive and tolerant day and age, is something of a white elephant.

What happens if state and church becoming separate? Will the queen cease to be temporal head of the church since she is head of state? And if so, how would it impact of the Act of Settlement?

(...and we are changing the subject!)

Reply 18