Several papers report today that Tracy Anne McVeigh will not allow her son Matthew to swear the Scout’s oath ‘I promise to serve God and the Queen’ on the grounds that ‘the monarchy discriminates against Catholics’ on account of the terms of the Act of Settlement. Apart from the fact that it is not fair to blame an Act passed 300 years ago on the present monarchy, this somewhat incoherent protest of a Catholic against the Act of Settlement is promising but at the same time slightly worrying; will opposition to the Act, which is surely growing, manifest itself in terms of republicanism (the McVeighs want to swear an oath to ‘my country’)? Antipathy to the Act of Settlement is driven largely by those concerned with equality legislation rather than anyone with any real understanding of constitutional law, as Hazel Blears’ hasty backtracking on her announcement to repeal the Act of Settlement showed. A number of Catholics have also declared their opposition to it as well on the grounds that it discriminates against their faith (and Autumn Kelly’s renunciation of Catholicism before her marriage to Peter Phillips has ensured the Act stays in the limelight). However, the challenge posed to the Act of Union with Scotland by the rise of the SNP has left no-one in doubt that even ancient constitutional legislation can be tackled. Yet just as I wish that the issue of Scottish independence were treated as a constitutional rather than a nationalistic or economic issue, I wish that the Act of Settlement could be seen for what it is – an unconstitutional act that is wrong because it asserts the authority of Parliament to determine the royal succession, not because it violates equality legislation or ‘discriminates’ against a faith group.
June 13, 2008...4:19 pm
Opposition to the Act of Succession on the rise…
Jump to Comments
3 Comments
June 13, 2008 at 10:09 pm
The Times internationally reported the Prince of Wales stating on 6th November 1995, that “Catholics should be able to ascend to the British throne.” He made the remarks to Tony Blair and Paddy Ashdown after the funeral of Israeli premier Yitzhak Rabin. Mr. Ashdown claims the Prince said: Quote: “I really can’t think why we can’t have Catholics on the throne.” At this meeting of international world leaders from eighty nations, the Prince of Wales officially represented the British Head of State, along-side Conservative Prime Minister John Major, Labor Opposition leader Tony Blair and the Liberal Leader Paddy Ashdown. This meeting of Presidents, Kings, Prime Ministers, Chancellors and Ambassadors included the leaders from most Commonwealth countries, the European Commission: President and Director-General and leaders of the majority of EU countries, the French President, German President and Chancellor, UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, President and former Presidents; Clinton, Bush and Carter, Secretary and former Secretaries of State, House of Representatives and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders.
June 18, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Speaking in the House of Commons Mrs Barbara Follett, the Minister of Equality (sic) got worked up on the “unfairness” of primogeniture but could not bring herself to get quite so worked up about the Act of Succession as an “equality” issue. Mrs Follett married three or four times is somewhat of an expert on the subject of marriage.
The present Scottish situation is rather interesting, beingsomething of a Trojan Horse.
But not quite as unique as the situation in “Northern Ireland” where people have been given the “right” to be British or Irish.
For many years there has been a Catholic Boy Scouts of Ireland, and I mispent some of my youth as a member.
No oath of allegiance required. .
December 31, 2008 at 3:37 pm
The Act of Settlement, it is good for us Catholics. It reminds us that we are different, and it does us the courtesy of taking our beliefs seriously by identifying them as a real challenge.
I question the viability of a Catholic community which devotes any great energy to the question of ascending the Throne while the born sleep in cardboard boxes on the streets and the pre-born are ripped from their mothers’ wombs to be discarded as surgical waste.
Far from being a term of abuse, the word “Papist” is in fact the name under which the English Martyrs gave their lives, and expresses the cause for which they did so, making it a badge of honour, to be worn with pride.
And yet, and yet, and yet…
The Established status of the Church of England was already a century and a half old at the time of the Act of Settlement, and is wholly unconnected to it. Anyway, in the 1990s, the Courts ruled that that status entailed what everyone had always known to be the case: that the doctrine of the Church of England – “the reformed Protestant religion as by law established in the Realm of England” – is whatever Parliament says it is at any given time, be that the ordination of women (as was the matter in question), or reincarnation, or the infallibility of Papal definitions ‘ex cathedra’, or anything else at all. All that it is necessary for a monarch to do in order to uphold this “religion” is to grant Royal Assent to Ecclesiastical Measures just as if they were any other Bills passed by Parliament.
Those who would most resist any change to the Act of Settlement are those who insist that the Church of England is confessionally Calvinistic as a first principle rather than, as is in fact the case, only until such time as Parliament sees fit to repeal or replace the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, and not a moment longer. Such people are mostly not in England (where they are mostly not members of the Church of England), but in Scotland (where the monarch is required, in ecclesiastical terms, to do nothing more than preserve a Presbyterian pattern of polity) and in Northern Ireland (where, as in Wales, the monarch has no formal ecclesiastical function whatever).
However, it is in Northern Ireland that a large Catholic community, by far the single largest religious body (as the Catholic Church also is, narrowly or otherwise, in each of England, Scotland and Wales), is crying out to be bound more closely to the British State, with which certainly a very large proportion of its members, and possibly the majority, identifies very strongly. In view of what the Coronation Oath actually means, then let the Act of Settlement be repealed if that would help that binding, long complete and unthought about everywhere else in the United Kingdom (even, it seems, on Merseyside and in the West of Scotland).
What was established in 1688, with strong Papal support, was in fact the Catholic principle previously given practical effect in 1399 in England, and even more ingrained in Scotland, as against both Gallican princely absolutism and its metamorphosis into the theory whereby the new gentry-cum-mercantile republic was sovereign even over the Prince.
English Jacobitism, in particular, was what would now be called an Anglican, rather than a Catholic, phenomenon, when it was not just a ragbag of everyone (Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, smugglers, the lot) opposed to the Whig hegemony. Catholics hardly featured, since they simply did not share the underlying philosophical and theological assumptions; rather, they fully accepted Parliament’s right to determine the succession to the Throne, even when it was inconvenient to themselves.
Each of the Commonwealth Realms is a linear inheritor of that age-old tradition, which is the peaceable alternative both to the bloodletting anti-republican pseudo-monarchism coming down from Buridan through the French Counter-Revolution, and to the bloodletting anti-monarchist pseudo-republicanism against which it came to react, historical aberrations both.
The Parliament of each Commonwealth Realm therefore has the absolute right to determine the succession to its own Throne; but they mercifully choose to exercise this right in unison, and may that ever remain the case. (It is perfectly illiterate to suggest that the repeal of the Act of Settlement would revive any Stuart claim to the Throne.)
So, again, if the repeal of the Act of Settlement helped to keep even one country in this family, then, in view of the above, by all means let it be repealed, though only by unanimous consent among all the Commonwealth Realms, since its continuation would also be a price well worth paying in order to preserve the unity of our family.