Royal Succession reform?

Gordon Murray, PTS Chairman, reflects on the recent discussions between the Prime Minister and Buckingham Palace regarding royal succession reform, and explains why changing the Act of Settlement is no simple matter.

In the recent debate about removing the law that prohibits a Roman Catholic from becoming our monarch it was claimed that to do this would be a simple matter. In fact the very opposite would be the case.

Of course, the major issue for Protestants like ourselves would be the spiritual one, and we could point out the reasons why the law was passed in such a form in the first place. We could justifiably claim that the Protestant constitution has contributed to the wellbeing and stability of our country across the last three centuries.

Those who want the law changed would argue, no doubt, that this is all past history and that we live in a period when such discrimination is not only unnecessary, but also insulting. That particular argument is said to be widely accepted if recent media coverage is to be believed. If that is the case it can only be because people in general do not understand the implications of a change, or just cannot be bothered to take it seriously. It is therefore our responsibility as Protestants, standing for the truth of the gospel and its importance for our country, to help others to see what is at stake in the issues that are involved in such a radical change.

It was encouraging, though, that when the matter was discussed in an Any Questions? at the end of March the response in Any Answers? was almost entirely against change. Reference was made to the influence the Vatican could exercise over our country if we had a Roman Catholic monarch, and a lady who described herself as a Christian and committed Anglican married to a Roman Catholic pointed out how the Roman Church controlled so much of what went on in that family

I had my own opportunity to make a contribution in which I indicated the ignorance about this subject revealed by two of the MPs on the programme. The Conservative Chris Grayling blamed Henry VIII for the Act of Settlement blithely ignoring all the events of the 150 years between that monarch’s death and the actual passing of the Act. Sir Menzies Campbell thought that it was no concern of his because he was a Presbyterian, oblivious of the fact that the Queen subscribed an oath before the Privy Council “to maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant Religion” in the form of the Church of Scotland and its Presbyterian Church Government, all of this in accordance with an Act of Parliament. If this is the general degree of understanding among our members of Parliament they are totally ill equipped to make any change to the law as it stands.

The major point I outlined, and develop in more detail here, concerned the consequences that could follow a change. Even the Roman Catholics who are pressing for it seem incapable of realising what the implications would be. They believe, or say they believe, that only members of their Church are barred from the monarchy. That is simply not true. As the law stands and as the oaths that a new monarch have to make in accordance with that law are framed it would be impossible for anyone other than a Protestant member of the Church of England to ascend the throne with a good conscience.

The Roman Catholics seem to think it would benefit them alone. To alter the law, though, and modify the oaths made by the monarch so that they would not be discriminatory would open the way for anyone to ascend the throne. What would the Roman Catholics say if the heir to the throne became a Nonconformist Protestant, a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, the adherent of any other religion, or even an atheist? Would we have to go on altering the ceremony for the crowning of a new monarch to accommodate his or her particular belief or lack of it? There is no way, either, that the Church of England could remain indefinitely the established Church if this change went through. That is the logical implication of the anti-discrimination argument put forward by the Roman Catholic MPs and Press. Is this what they really want?

It is also possible to see that this destabilisation of our Constitution could, and perhaps inevitably would, lead to the abolition of the monarchy and the setting up of a Republic. There are advocates of such a move already around in political circles, and it may be they are encouraging the present efforts for change. What, for example, is the religious position of Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal-Democrat MP who proposed the recent Private Member’s Bill relevant to this matter? It is worthwhile as well to look at the European countries to see how many formerly had a Roman Catholic monarchy and are now Republics. How does this compare with Protestant states?

There is another matter that deserves serious consideration. If the law were to be changed along the lines proposed the Queen would be required to give her royal assent. This would in effect be imposing on her the obligation to break oaths she solemnly and sincerely made at her accession and coronation. When she was young, while her father was alive, she broadcast her vow to serve this country faithfully. She has carried out that vow faithfully through her long reign, and she has been an example to the whole world of an integrity that is sadly increasingly rare. To ask her now to break the promises solemnly and conscientiously given at her coronation before Almighty God would be an action on the part of Parliament robbing it of all respect in the eyes of decent people everywhere.

To take advantage of a new monarch coming to the throne would simply present new difficulties. The present constitution has served this country well, despite what republicans may say, providing a stability that has been invaluable in an era of great change, and it should be left alone.

There has been no attempt here to enter into a discussion about the relation of any particular Church to the State. This is a matter in which equally sincere Protestants take different positions according to their understanding of Scripture. The question here concerns a Christian monarch’s responsibility to the country spiritually. By the grace of God our present constitution has brought about a situation in which there is religious freedom. Recent legislation has been infringing that freedom. The change envisaged far from safeguarding freedom would leave it wide open for the increase of a greater intolerance.

It is not likely that this issue will be raised again in Parliament for quite some time. As, however, it has been brought into the public domain once more it could be a good time to write to your MP, to the Prime Minister, and perhaps to the Queen herself. You may like to follow up some of the arguments outlined above. You may want to develop other points, but remember that too long or complex a letter may not get the attention it deserves. Many of us would like to say more about the doctrinal and the historical issues because of their importance to us, but we need to remember that politicians on the whole don’t have much interest in either. That’s why I’ve concentrated on the actual possible consequences of a change as politicians have a responsibility to take these into account in considering legislative matters.

The Roman Catholics are unlikely to let this subject lie dormant for long, either in this Parliament or the next. As soon as you get wind of this coming up again write once more. You could have a new MP after the next election and we don’t know what line a new Government might take.

Please pray too that the Lord will have mercy on our nation. We do seem to be under His judgement at the moment and there needs to be a spiritual awakening among Protestant churches generally. We can easily be far too parochial in our thinking and praying. The Lord could be pleased to use our prayers and our voice to make a difference for good in our land.