News0 min ago
Atheist On The Throne
What would happen if one of the heirs to the throne announced he was an atheist?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hopkirk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kromovaracun
That's a real head-scratcher...because (and correct me if I'm wrong), even though the public elect a party, it's the Queen who invites the PM to work for her, isn't it?
So if he didn't get her permission...he couldn't lead and would have to resign as PM, leaving the position open to someone who would accept the invitation.
I think the key is that we don't elect a PM, we elect a party, and the PM just happens to be the leader of that party.
I think...
That's a real head-scratcher...because (and correct me if I'm wrong), even though the public elect a party, it's the Queen who invites the PM to work for her, isn't it?
So if he didn't get her permission...he couldn't lead and would have to resign as PM, leaving the position open to someone who would accept the invitation.
I think the key is that we don't elect a PM, we elect a party, and the PM just happens to be the leader of that party.
I think...
http://
The Act of Settlement 1701 (restated by the Acts of Union) still governs succession to the Throne. (The Act does not abrogate several provisions of the Bill of Rights, which, therefore, still remain in effect.)
The Act of Settlement further provides that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic is ineligible to succeed. The Act does not require that the spouse be Protestant; it only bars those who marry Roman Catholics. Since the passage of the Act it has been determined (in the case of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) that an individual is not barred because his or her spouse later converts to Roman Catholicism after their marriage.
Interesting, in that under the current rules of Succession, a future Monarch can be of ANY religion except RC, as this is proscribed under the Act of Succession 1701 & restated in Acts of Union. Although given the current turmoil re Scottish Referendum questions, this could be once again up for debate, not that I wish it ever to be.
The Act of Settlement 1701 (restated by the Acts of Union) still governs succession to the Throne. (The Act does not abrogate several provisions of the Bill of Rights, which, therefore, still remain in effect.)
The Act of Settlement further provides that anyone who marries a Roman Catholic is ineligible to succeed. The Act does not require that the spouse be Protestant; it only bars those who marry Roman Catholics. Since the passage of the Act it has been determined (in the case of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) that an individual is not barred because his or her spouse later converts to Roman Catholicism after their marriage.
Interesting, in that under the current rules of Succession, a future Monarch can be of ANY religion except RC, as this is proscribed under the Act of Succession 1701 & restated in Acts of Union. Although given the current turmoil re Scottish Referendum questions, this could be once again up for debate, not that I wish it ever to be.
-- answer removed --
"parties have on many occasions implemented policies that weren't in their manifestos, or ignored policies that were, without anyone having to step down."
Yep, that's a side issue.
You could simply redefine the role of King/Queen in the CoE as an "administrative role" rather than a spiritual one, or they simply get to nominate the new head of CoE? It's only a minor rearrangement in practical terms.
Yep, that's a side issue.
You could simply redefine the role of King/Queen in the CoE as an "administrative role" rather than a spiritual one, or they simply get to nominate the new head of CoE? It's only a minor rearrangement in practical terms.
^^^ This the one you mean, Ab Editor?
http://
http://
From Nibble’s link:
//Under one interpretation, the religion of an individual at the precise moment of succession is relevant. Under another interpretation, anyone who has been a Roman Catholic at any time since 1689 ("then … or afterwards") is forever ineligible to succeed. The former interpretation allows a Roman Catholic to convert to Protestantism and succeed to the Throne just before his predecessor dies; the latter does not. In either case, however, other religions are not affected; it is clear that any non-Catholic may convert to Protestantism and succeed to the Throne.//
Since the Queen is Head of the Church of England, I don’t think that means that someone of another faith could succeed to the throne. That would be silly. Other religions aren’t specified because when those rules were drawn up, faiths other than RC and Protestantism weren’t a consideration. The Act was clearly constructed to keep Protestants on the throne and to prevent Roman Catholics reclaiming it.
//Under one interpretation, the religion of an individual at the precise moment of succession is relevant. Under another interpretation, anyone who has been a Roman Catholic at any time since 1689 ("then … or afterwards") is forever ineligible to succeed. The former interpretation allows a Roman Catholic to convert to Protestantism and succeed to the Throne just before his predecessor dies; the latter does not. In either case, however, other religions are not affected; it is clear that any non-Catholic may convert to Protestantism and succeed to the Throne.//
Since the Queen is Head of the Church of England, I don’t think that means that someone of another faith could succeed to the throne. That would be silly. Other religions aren’t specified because when those rules were drawn up, faiths other than RC and Protestantism weren’t a consideration. The Act was clearly constructed to keep Protestants on the throne and to prevent Roman Catholics reclaiming it.
-- answer removed --
