Editing Act of Settlement 1701 (section)

=== United Kingdom ===
{{See also|Succession to the British throne#Reform}}

From time to time there has been debate over repealing the clause that prevents Roman Catholics, or those who marry one, from ascending to the British throne. Proponents of repeal argue that the clause is a bigoted anachronism; [[Cardinal Winning]], who was leader of the Roman Catholic Church in [[Scotland]], called the act an "insult" to Catholics. [[Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor]], the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England, pointed out that Prince William (later the Duke of Cambridge) "can marry by law a [[Hindu]], a [[Buddhist]], anyone, but not a Roman Catholic."<ref>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2021615.stm |work=[[BBC News Online]] |title=Let monarchy marry Catholics |date=2 June 2002 |access-date=30 March 2010 }}</ref> Opponents of repeal, such as [[Enoch Powell]] and [[Adrian Hilton]], believe that it would lead to the disestablishment of the Church of England as the state religion if a Roman Catholic were to come to the throne. They also note that the monarch must swear to defend the faith and be a member of the [[Anglican Communion]], but that a Roman Catholic monarch would, like all Roman Catholics, owe allegiance to the Pope. This would, according to opponents of repeal, amount to a loss of sovereignty for the Anglican Church.

When in December 1978 there was media speculation that [[Prince Charles]] might marry a Roman Catholic, Powell defended the provision that excludes Roman Catholics from ascending the throne, stating his objection was not rooted in religious bigotry but in political considerations. He said a Roman Catholic monarch would mean the acceptance of a source of authority external to the realm and "in the literal sense, foreign to the [[Crown-in-Parliament]] ... Between Roman Catholicism and [[royal supremacy]] there is, as Saint [[Thomas More]] concluded, no reconciliation." Powell concluded that a Roman Catholic crown would be the destruction of the Church of England because "it would contradict the essential character of that church."

He continued:
<blockquote>When [[Thomas Hobbes]] wrote that "the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased [[Roman Empire]] sitting crowned upon the grave thereof", he was promulgating an enormously important truth. Authority in the Roman Church is the exertion of that ''imperium'' from which England in the 16th century finally and decisively declared its national independence as the ''alter imperium'', the "other empire", of which [[Henry VIII]] declared "This realm of England is an empire" ... It would signal the beginning of the end of the British monarchy. It would portend the eventual surrender of everything that has made us, and keeps us still, a nation.<ref>{{cite book |title=[[Like the Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell]] |last=Heffer |first=Simon |author-link=Simon Heffer |year=1999 |publisher=Phoenix Giant |location=London |isbn=0-7538-0820-X |pages=810–812}}</ref></blockquote>

The [[Scottish Parliament]] unanimously passed a motion in 1999 calling for the complete removal of any discrimination linked to the monarchy and the repeal of the Act of Settlement.<ref name=Scotsman2011>{{cite news |url=http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/catholics_still_barred_from_throne_despite_law_change_1_1937348 |title=Catholics still barred from throne despite law change |date=28 October 2011 |newspaper=[[The Scotsman]] |access-date=29 October 2011 |archive-date=30 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130530052121/http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/catholics_still_barred_from_throne_despite_law_change_1_1937348 |url-status=dead }}</ref> The following year, ''[[The Guardian]]'' challenged the succession law in court,<ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/dec/06/monarchy.claredyer |last=Dyer |first=Clare |title=A Challenge to the Crown: now is the time for change |date=6 December 2000 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=16 January 2010 }}</ref> claiming that it violated the [[European Convention on Human Rights]], which provides,
<blockquote>The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth, or other status.</blockquote>

As the Convention nowhere lists the right to succeed to the Crown as a human right, the challenge was rejected.

[[Adrian Hilton]], writing in ''[[The Spectator]]'' in 2003, defended the Act of Settlement as not "irrational prejudice or blind bigotry", but claimed that it was passed because "the nation had learnt that when a Roman Catholic monarch is upon the throne, religious and civil liberty is lost." He points to the Pope's claiming universal jurisdiction, and Hilton argues that "it would be intolerable to have, as the sovereign of a Protestant and free country, one who owes any allegiance to the head of any other state" and contends that, if such situation came about, "we will have undone centuries of common law." He said that because the Roman Catholic Church [[apostolicae curae|does not recognise the Church of England as an apostolic church]], a Roman Catholic monarch who abided by their faith's doctrine would be obliged to view Anglican and [[Church of Scotland]] archbishops, bishops, and clergy as part of the laity and therefore "lacking the ordained authority to preach and celebrate the sacraments." (Hilton noted that the Church of Scotland's [[Presbyterian polity]] does not include bishops or archbishops.) Hilton said a Roman Catholic monarch would be unable to be crowned by the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] and notes that other European states have similar religious provisions for their monarchs: Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, whose constitutions compel their monarchs to be [[Lutheranism|Lutherans]]; the Netherlands, which has a constitution requiring its monarchs be members of the Protestant [[House of Orange]]; and Belgium, which has a constitution that provides for the succession to be through Roman Catholic houses.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200311/ai_n9341744 |last=Hilton |first=Adrian |title=The price of liberty |newspaper=[[The Spectator]] |date=8 November 2003 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070604070506/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200311/ai_n9341744 |archive-date= 4 June 2007 }}</ref>

In December 2004, a private member's bill—the [[Succession to the Crown Bill 2004|Succession to the Crown Bill]]—was introduced in the House of Lords. The government, headed by [[Tony Blair]], blocked all attempts to revise the succession laws, claiming it would raise too many constitutional issues and it was unnecessary at the time. In the [[2005 United Kingdom general election|British general election the following year]], [[Michael Howard]] promised to work towards having the prohibition removed if the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative Party]] gained a majority of seats in the House of Commons, but the election was won by Blair's [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour Party]]. Four years later, plans drawn up by [[Chris Bryant]] were revealed that would end the exclusion of Catholics from the throne and end the doctrine of male-preference [[primogeniture]] in favour of absolute primogeniture, which governs succession solely on birth order and not on sex.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1| last=Wintour| first=Patrick| title=End of the Anglican crown – 300 year bar to be lifted| date=25 September 2008| newspaper=The Guardian| access-date=25 September 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080926085427/http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/anglicanism.catholicism1| archive-date= 26 September 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref> The issue was raised again in January 2009, when a private member's bill to amend the Act of Succession was introduced in parliament.