The Act of Settlement, which prevents the monarch marrying a Catholic, was drawn up in a time of religious anarchy in the 18th century. Now 308 years later, Lib Dem MP Dr Evan Harris is trying to have it reformed. Since the reign of King Henry VIII in the 16th Century, the ruler of England has also been supreme governor the established church - Anglicanism. But in 1701, King William III felt the law needed to go further to restrict the monarch's religion. He was ill and childless and was desperate to ensure his rival James II, an exiled Catholic, would not return to the throne. So he drew up the Act of Settlement, which states that anyone who "shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist" cannot be monarch. Crucially, the act does not ban the monarch from marrying anyone of any other religion or indeed someone of no faith at all. Dr Harris believes that the continued existence of this law is a form of unacceptable discrimination "written into the UK's constitution". "It seems to be patently unjustified to place a restriction on Catholics but not Jews, Muslims or atheists," he told the BBC News website. My source, a very basic overview from the BBC website. :)

From the wiki site on the Act of Settlement of 1701: Following the Glorious Revolution, the line of succession to the English throne was governed by the Bill of Rights 1689, which declared that the flight of James II from England to France during the revolution amounted to an abdication of the throne, and that his son in law, William of Orange, and his daughter, Mary, were his successors, who ruled jointly as William III and Mary II. The Bill of Rights also stated that the line of succession would go through their descendants, then through Mary's sister Princess Anne, and her descendents, and then to the issue of William III by a later marriage (if he were to marry again after the death of Mary II). However, Mary II died childless in 1694, after which William III did not remarry, and Princess Anne's last surviving child, William, Duke of Gloucester, died six years later, after which it was unlikely she would have any more children due to her age and the large number of miscarriages she had previously suffered. Thus, there was seen a need for a new law that would ensure the continuance of the succession following the death of the last legal heir under the Bill of Rights, Princess Anne; to ensure the line of succession would continue in the Protestant line; and to exclude any possible claims by the deposed James II or his son and daughter, James Francis Edward and Louisa Maria Teresa Stuart. The Act of Settlement was thus passed and granted Royal Assent in June 1701. My perspective is that this was demanded by the representatives of The People. The Crown merely acquiesced. You seem to perceive it as the Crown demanded it and made it so. Had, or had not, the Stuarts raised 'armies' in Ireland and were intent upon invading England to subjegate the People and disband their representatives in Parliament? Had not the Crown Prince placed his Catholic favorites in places of high influence and control of military forces? Did not that Crown Prince, upon ascension to the thrown, attempt to wield that 'army', to the benefit of the Catholic church in Rome? From that perspective, there seems adequate rationale to justify the actions of the British peoples in throwing off the yoke of 'divine right' amongst royalty and shift the sovereignty towards the people and their representatives in Parliament. This was the real 'revolution' of the rebellion which is erroneously called "The Glorious Revolution of 1688". This would also set the stage for the even greater struggle with the claims of 'divine royalty' on the continent. The movement of Britain into the constitutional governance would help counter its spread on the continent. Ireland would inherit the thankless role of being the treacherous knife at the back of the hero at the moment he would rid the world of spreading evil. Ireland became brutally suppressed as a result, individual association with religious groups become markers for acts of terrorism and brutality on both sides. Atrocities proliferated. The whole issue of whether the crown should or should not be Catholic is now a rather moot issue. Do away with the Crown entirely, and it will be done with entirely. It's a quaint old way to grant a whole bunch of special favors to a specific group of people under the law. It is entirely unnecessary and, over time, obviously dysfunctional. Choose your figurehead by lot, if you like...it makes as much sense as hereditary buffoons. Or elect your buffoons, like we do.

Well, we elect part of the buffoons as such. A 150 to be exact, of which a majority gives backing to another set of buffoons that run the shop with the head buffoon, the current one a great reason to doubt the whole system at the moment. Sigh. But a hereditary Head of State does suck imo, even if the current and upcoming ones aren't the worst persons to do the job and the system itself doesn't give them any real political power.

So...For those of you in the nether regions, royalty is merely vestigial? Having been raised in a culture which explicitly denies hereditary exclusivity, I find the idea ludicrous, and cannot really fathom what interest royalty has for folks. I briefly befriended a lovely Danish woman here in Puddle City. She was so smitten with the Danish royal family...I just did not understand it. She acted like a fangirl of some passing fancy rockstar (another behavior that eludes me) when it came to royalty. Of course, that was about the time of Charlie and Di's wedding, so that kind of thing was at a fevered pitch, even here in the US.

I'm still not sure how it works... I don't like the idea of hereditary head of state at all, but for some reason it sure works beneficial in many ways. I do get a bit freaked out by the fangirl approach some people do have here, that is as freakish as anything that stops critical thinking. But our royals tend to show up when times are hard or when there's an important celebration and it does make people feel good. It truly does. Part of it is probably the fact that they're not elected into office. Having a royal as the head of your diplomatic mission (with a lot of business representatives in it's wake) sure doesn't harm the economic progress of this tiny nation that heavily depends on trafficking other peoples goods. It's not really fair of course. Not on them, nor on any one else capable of performing such tasks but born in the wrong family. I like a head of state without any political power to wield, so any alternative has to be along the same lines as far as I'm concerned. Smile, sign, look good in formal outfits and I'll vote you into the job for a couple of years. I prefer the running of the country as we have it arranged at the moment. Through parliament and a cabinet with a prime minister.

I like our royalty. The queen puts in a lot of hours per week, I can't remember how much, but I did think it amazing.

I do remember many many years ago when I was staying with friends in a place called Nordwjke ( sorry I've taken a flying run at spelling it but really the Dutch do use the oddest letters when they write things down :lol: ) and the road to Leiden was very badly flooded. A school bus was involved in a bad accident and my friends sister was taken to hospital - your Queen turned up unanounced to see the children and bring them each a small present. Nice lady :)

For the record, I also find, let us call it emotional royalism utterly incomprehensible. Even a few people I know have a fannish infatuation and/or a strange awe of our royal family, and I just can't wrap my head around it. I usually say I feel about monarchy in general and our royalties in particular about the same way the average secular Swede feels about religion. To me it's a bizarre and vaguely distasteful anachronism but not something I can really muster any strong feelings about either way. :)

It was about 1975 or so ( sorry was smoking an awful lot of cannabis on the trip )