Page "Act of Settlement 1701" Paragraph 33

Adrian Hilton, writing in The Spectator in 2003, defended the Act of Settlement as not " irrational prejudice or blind bigotry " but claimed that it was passed because " the nation had learnt that when a Roman Catholic monarch is upon the throne, religious and civil liberty is lost.

" He points to the fact that the Pope claims universal jurisdiction and he therefore argues that " it would be intolerable to have, as the sovereign of a Protestant and free country, one who owes any allegiance to the head of any other state " and contends that if such situation came about " we will have undone centuries of common law.

" He further asserts that because the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise the Church of England as an apostolic church, a Roman Catholic monarch who abided by their faith's doctrine would be obliged to view Anglican and Church of Scotland archbishops, bishops, and clergy as part of the laity and therefore " lacking the ordained authority to preach and celebrate the sacraments.

" ( Hilton does mention that the Church of Scotland's Presbyterian polity does not include bishops or archbishops.

) Hilton also claims a Roman Catholic monarch would therefore be unable to be crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and points to the examples of European states that have similar religious provisions for their monarchs: Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, whose constitutions compel their monarchs to be Lutherans, the Netherlands, the constitution of which insists its monarchs be members of the Protestant House of Orange, and Belgium, which has a constitution that provides for the succession to be through Roman Catholic houses.