THE ban on Roman Catholics ascending the English throne is certain to be
overturned because it does not comply with the new Human Rights Act,
according to leading lawyers.
The ban breaches two of the convention's 14 provisions, the lawyers say, and
a legal challenge from the Scottish National Party is already being prepared.
The relevant sections are article 12, which gives everyone the right to marry
whoever he or she wants, and article 14, which says that it is the right of
everyone not to be discriminated against on religious grounds. The convention
came into force on October 2.
Neil Addison, a leading human rights barrister who has launched a number of
successful actions under the new convention, said: "The Act of Settlement
clearly breaches the Human Rights Act. Any legal challenge would be
successful. If Prince Charles or Prince William want to marry a Catholic they
clearly have the right to do so under the Human Rights Act."
The 1701 Act of Settlement prohibits the heir to the throne becoming a
Catholic before ascending to the throne, or marrying a Catholic, but does not
rule out marriage to a member of any other faith. It was drawn up to ensure a
Protestant succeeded to the throne in the aftermath of the revolution that saw
the Catholic James II overthrown by his Protestant daughter Mary and her
husband William in 1688.
If the Act of Settlement had to be altered, the Queen could be forced to take
a new Coronation Oath. The 1706 Act of Union between Scotland and
England and the 1931 Statute of Westminster which established the modern
Commonwealth would also need to be altered.
The Government does not want to precipitate an immediate change because it
would involve altering these pieces of legislation. The Telegraph has learned
that the Home Office has ditched much of a report on religious discrimination
which it commissioned from Derby University because it recommended
similar sensitive reforms to the monarchy. Ministers are, however, bracing
themselves for a legal challenge which is almost certain to succeed and would
force them to act.
Lord St John of Fawsley, the former Tory minister and expert on
constitutional issues, said: "There may well be a challenge under the Act. But
what is also required is that anyone who ascends the throne would have to be
able to join in communion with the Church of England. If that requirement also
goes, as I suppose it might, then the whole establishment goes."
He added that, although a Catholic himself, he felt it was not the right time to
mount such a challenge. "The Act of Settlement is insulting and unjust to
Catholics, but there are no Catholics suffering discrimination at the moment so
it does not need to be raised. The monarchy has been through such a frightful
upheaval. What it needs is a period of calm."
Many Labour MPs and members of the Scottish Parliament are eager for
change and a legal challenge could be led by the SNP. Roseanna
Cunningham, the SNP MP for Perth, has led calls for the Act of Settlement to
be altered, and led a debate on the issue in Parliament last year. She said that
party officials were investigating mounting a legal challenge.
Pressure is also mounting from Labour MPs such as Fraser Kemp, the
Member for Houghton and Washington East. "It is indefensible for there to be
this kind of discrimination in society," he said. "Catholics should have a right to
ascend to the throne and the quicker we get rid of the discrimination the
better." Dr John Reid, the Scottish Secretary, has said: "As a Roman Catholic
myself, I am only too well aware of the deep feelings and passions which
surround this issue."
Senior Churchmen also support reform. The Archbishop of York, Dr David
Hope, the second most senior figure in the Church of England, said yesterday
that he did not see why the monarch should be barred from marrying a
Catholic. The Rt Rev Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the new Archbishop of
Westminster and head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales,
said: "An heir to the crown should be free to marry whoever he wishes,
whatever denomination."
Controversy was provoked last month when Paddy Ashdown, the former
Liberal Democrat leader, disclosed in his political diaries that the Prince of
Wales had said that he did not see why a Catholic should be prevented from
ascending to the throne. Mr Ashdown said that Prince Charles made the
remarks in a private conversation with him and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister,
during a foreign trip five years ago.
The Home Office said: "The Government has always been against
discrimination, including religious discrimination, but we don't have current
plans to alter the Act of Settlement. Ultimately it would be up to the courts to
decide."
The 200-year-old ban on vicars and priests sitting in the House of Commons
is to be lifted in time for the next general election. The ban dates back to the
1801 Disqualification of Clergy (House of Commons) Act, which was
intended to stop organised religion, then a powerful force in the land, from
altering legislation to benefit the Church.
~*~
Duke plans to become 'salesman' after
Navy(Electronic Telegraph)
By Andrew Alderson
THE Duke of York is to take on a new globe-trotting role as a
"supersalesman", leading Britain's overseas exports drive when he leaves the
Royal Navy next year.
He surprised senior members of the Royal Family when he revealed his plans
days ago at a meeting of the Way Ahead Group, which twice a year examines
ways of reforming and improving the monarchy. Senior royal officials
disclosed yesterday that the Duke, 40, has been in private talks with British
Trade International (BTI) - formerly the British Overseas Trade Board - over
his new role. The Queen is believed to be in favour of the move.
He will replace the Duke of Kent, who stood down after a quarter of a
century as vice-chairman of the BTI. The organisation provides help and
advice for British companies wanting to expand their businesses overseas.
One royal official said: "This sort of job involves an awful lot of overseas
travel to some fairly far-flung places. It would have a wide-ranging porfolio."
~*~
Diana's fund to appeal in doll fight (UK Sunday Times)
THE Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund is to appeal in
its legal battle against an American company manufacturing
unauthorised Diana dolls - even though it has already run up
legal bills of more than £3m, writes Jon Ungoed-Thomas.
Last week Andrew Purkis, the fund's chief executive, defended
the aggressive but so far unsuccessful tactics to stop Franklin
Mint from making dolls and other memorabilia.
Purkis has also rejected the suggestion of Paul Burrell, the
princess's former butler, to build a children's hospital as a
lasting memorial. "I think it's much better to create new money
for charity and to keep going for longer as a living memorial
than to build a bloody hospital," he said.
Franklin Mint, which has sold more than 300,000 Diana
souvenirs, successfully argued that it was free to use Diana's
likeness because she never tried to challenge the manufacture
of products bearing her name while she was alive.