Talk:Act of Settlement 1701

message: As a result of the Act of Settlement, several members of the British Royal Family who have converted to Roman Catholicism or married Catholics have been barred from their place in the line of succession. These cases are a major part of the potential interest for non-historians. Wetman 20:50, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you look at Line of succession to the British throne to see those living people (Roman Catholics) who have been "skipped". Peter Clarke (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholicism

message: :only Protestant descendants of Sophia, dowager Electress and dowager Duchess of Hanover, who have not married a Roman Catholic, can succeed to the English Crown.
So can such a Protestant descendant who marries a Muslim or a Jew succeed to the crown?  Or a Protestant married to a Greek Orthodox priest?  Michael Hardy 02:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, so long as the descendant remains in communion with the Church of England.  --Henrygb 11:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so. Prince Philip, who was raised in the Greek Orthodox Church, was required to become an Anglican in order to marry Princess Elizabeth. Carolynparrishfan 16:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was not required by the Act of Settlement.  More likely to be a reaction to Edward VIII's abdication crisis. His cousin Queen Sofia of Spain also converted (to Roman Catholicism), so such things were not uncommon in international  royal marriages. --Henrygb 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Marriage to non-Protestants

message: I have been looking for a list of the cousins of George I who were 'passed over' because they were catholic - does anyone know who they were?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.201.83.26 (talk • contribs).
: User:Tamfang/Stuart – list of descendants of James VI&I who were born before George inherited the British crown and died after James II went into exile.  –Tamfang 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of those on the list ahead of Sophia/George, I count 27 alive in 1688; 49 alive in 1701; and 57 alive in 1714.  —Tamfang 05:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The daughters of that second marriage are in my list, but not the five sons, none of whom have articles, hmm.  Their ages at death are 29, 21, 31, 18, 15.  Did any of them have issue? —Tamfang (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "the losers"

message: Tony Blair has stated that he would amend or repeal the Act of Settlement 1701 and does not agree with it - indeed he was quoted in a newspaper interview before the election as saying that it was 'plainly discriminatory' but that the burden of work involved in changing this law, and the limited real-world effect meant that it was not a priority.
136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tony Blair's views 

message: The situation regarding Adrian Hilton was not directly related to the pronouncements of Michael Howard, but largely a reaction to a Catholic Herald article during the election. I do not believe that this statement should be included without a citation to back it up.
136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adrian Hilton 

message: Also, the Catholic church does not (at least formally) endorse any political parties, but instead issues guidance on the position they hold.
136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic endorsement 

message: The situation is more complex than presented in the article. There are two configurations:
1. Countries that have cut legal and constitutional ties with Britain, e.g. Canada (Canada Act) and Australia (Australia Act). In these realms any changes to the Act of Settlement 1701 (Imperial) would not affect the Act of Settlement 1701 (Canada) etc. However, in these countries the Crowns are de jure divorced from the British Crown already, and exist as entirely seperate legal and constitutional entities - even if the currently happen to be held by the same person (e.g. Queen of Barbados, Queen of Jamaica, etc.).  The succession according to the existing Act of Settlement 1701 is a constitutional clause in New Zealand at least.  Repeal or amendment of the Act of Settlement in these situations would not cause any legal problems in the UK, but could cause real-world difficulties in other countries (potentially breaking the 'personal union' relationship between the Commonwealth Realms).
2. Countries that still have tied-legal systems, including the right of the Imperial Parliament (Westminster) to legislate for them (overriding local law).  The Statute of Westminster 1931 tempers this right by requiring Westminster to have consent before doing so (c.f. Abdication Act 1936), and this is very specific in the case of any change to the succession requiring approval of all 16 Commonwealth Realms - including those that now in legal practice have a distinct Crown.  Even with agreement on a change this is still logistically difficult, and the course most commonly suggested by constitutional lawyers in the UK is to nullify this requirementin any legislation to make the amendment - earlier Acts do not bind Parliament against taking a different course later.  To quote Geoffrey Robertson QC "The statute of Westminster is not a bar to progressive reform of the monarchy. Just like any other statute, it can be amended by a later act of parliament. There is no legal reason why a Commonwealth country can veto a UK government enactment."
Overall though, any unilateral change to the religious or any other succession requirement (such as male-preference primogeniture) could potentially break the union and symmetry of the Commonwealth Realm crowns.
136.2.1.101 11:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth Realms 

message: References to the Act being from 1700 (such as the ACT register of legislation in the link) are due to the change in New Year's Day from 25th March to 1st January in England that occured in 1752. There is no fixed convention on whether to quote in Old Style (OS), New Style (NS), or the combined form that would read 1700/1.
The UK Parliament always refers to legislation by the OS year, and refers to this Act as the 'Act of Settlement 1700' in formal documents, although common usage (as recorded in Hansard in debates) is to use the modern form of 1701.
136.2.1.101 11:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely this reason and the old style/new style reason because the act was passed in June 1701. Kurando | ^_^ 09:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's correct, the article should clearly say so, which it appears not to @ present. Peter jackson (talk) 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act of Settlement 1700? 

message: The original introduction was recently removed:
*"The Act of Settlement (12 & 13 Wm 3 c.2)  is a piece of English legislation governing the succession to the English Crown. It was passed by the Parliament of England in 1701 (1700 in Old Style dates) to amend the English Bill of Rights, following the death of the last child of the then Princess Anne. It provides that (in default of any further heirs of William III of England or Princess Anne) only Protestant descendants of  Sophia, dowager Electress  and dowager Duchess of Hanover who have not married a Roman Catholic can succeed to the English Crown.  In addition, it specifies that it is for Parliament to determine who should succeed to the throne, not the monarch."
I have restored it, because any reader arriving at this page could reasonably be expecting to find out what this thing is. The key, vital, answer is that it is an Act of the Parliament of England, followed by a bit of very brief background.--Mais oui! 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Patriation of laws - whether there has been a specific statement that it applies in Commonwealth Realms isn't important, it applies either way. They could of course repeal this Act within their country, although I don't believe this has ever been done (as noted above, the Statute of Westminster is not a bar to unilateral action, as any of the Commonwealth Realms can also repeal that Act's effect on them too!) 136.2.1.101 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring factually accurate Introduction 

message: Given this is a key piece of legislation in the British constitution, it is listed in British laws category. Astrotrain 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is plain bad practice to double-enter articles in categories: if an article is in a subcategory it should not also be entered in the parent category. For good measure it is also listed in :Category:United Kingdom constitution, as it should be. --Mais oui! 00:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not in a sub cat of British laws. Astrotrain 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. --Mais oui! 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:British laws

message: The clause about making war for foreign monarchs is not "obsolete", merely inactive.
Although the first foreigner in the line of succession to the British Throne is No.60 (the king of Norway), the provision would become acutely relevant if, say, Prince William of Wales were to marry Victoria, Crown Princess of Sweden.  —Tamfang 06:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So much for that idea. —Tamfang (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  foreign monarchs 

message: Act says "That no monarch may leave the British Isles without the consent of Parliament."  Charmingly anachronistic.  Can someone add to the article at that point the reason why this was originally included?  Tempshill 04:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps to legitimize the theory that James II abdicated de facto when he fled.  —Tamfang 05:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where in the act does it say this?  I can't find any reference to it. Bardcom (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much confirms that the "British Isles" was a political entity. Hence the name is a political, not geographical, term. Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And perhaps so that no monarch may negotiate with a foreign power. Just a thought. Interesting tho.--Gazzster (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Because they were annoyed that William III spent time in Holland, and were expecting a German princeling to succeed who, they feared, might spend all his time in Germany.  I believe that this was later amended under one of the first two Georges so he could go to Germany when he wanted to. john k (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  That no monarch may leave the British Isles without the consent of Parliament. 

message: just wondering if this article should be categorised as :Category:Anti-Catholicism.--w_tanoto (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism category 

message: The act also states that anyone who attends Catholic services, eg. Mass, Communion etc is removed from any claim to the throne. "Queen" Elizabeth has indeed attended Catholic services(while remaining a member of C of E) and has socialised with Catholic Bishops etc. According to the very law that made her Queen in 1952 she should have been forced to abdicate, and Charles been declared the King of England. The Church of England were up in arms about this, but it went unnoticed. By rights the present Head of the Commonwealth is King Charles III(assuming he were to to take this name)! No No No No No No Yes (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Attending a service wouldn't incapacitate you, nor would socialising with Roman Catholics even if they are bishops. Recieving communion from a Catholic bishop would, and as far as I know she hasn't. That said, this is not a forum. Cheers. - Chrism would like to hear from you 12:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I wasn't being rude, merely pointing out that talkspace is for improving the article not for political discussion. That said, the source points out she merely attended a service. Mass wasn't celebrated, hence no communion, hence no violation. See: Eucharist if you're unsure what communion is. - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Act does not say "anyone who attends Catholic services, eg. Mass, Communion etc is removed from any claim to the throne". What it does say is "all and every Person and Persons who... is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist..." The triggers are clear. Moonraker (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attending Catholic services etc. 

message: On 12 Jan 1641 the House of Lords petitioned Charles I to make a number of appointments "quamdiu se bene gesserint".  --Jbergquist (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "By craft they got such a Moderator as they had at their own devotion; and yet there was such opposition made be many worthy brethren, that they could not get perpetuity of Commission to vote in Parliament, ad vitam or ad culpam, agreed unto; but only that it should be annual: Which conclusion the King and the Clerk, by adding thereto, drew as near their purpose as they could; to wit, that the Commissioner voter in Parliament should give account annuatim, and lay down the office at the feet of the Assembly, to be continued, or altered, as the Assembly, with consent of the King, sall think most expedient."   
Did Cicero's De Officiis play a role? James I's Basilikon Doron is done in a similar style. --Jbergquist (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior History of "quamdiu se bene gesserint" 

message: This law really worked for the British royal family.  Virtually all of the Queens of the United Kingdom (not sure about Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon though) were Protestants with not even one Catholic ancestor in the generations after the Break with Rome and the Reformation. Elizabeth II has no Catholic relations; her relation to the King of Spain, the King of Belgium, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg comes from common Protestant ancestors instead.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It really worked 

message: Is it enough to be of any Christian denomination, no matter how obscure, as long it's not Catholicism, to be considered a Protestant for the purposes of the Act of Settlement?  If not, what are the limits of Protestantism?  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Act requires the monarch to be a communicant of the Church of England. So technically, I suppose the heir could belong to any religion as long as it is not Catholicism, and as long as he became a member of the Church of England at his succession. George I could not have been a communicant of the Church of England when he succeeded Anne. The monarch could in fact be Catholic in their beliefs and practice if they he or she were affiliated with the Anglo-Catholic stream within the Church of England.Gazzster (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The question was first pressed with the arrival of all the Lutherans at court in the late 17th/early 18th centuries: i.e. first Prince George of Denmark, consort to Queen Anne, and then of course George I etc after 1714. There was an official German Chapel Royal at which Lutheran, and blended Lutheran/Anglican worship, was celebrated. I believe there was some ambiguity regarding whether or not these Lutheran-born royals had to 'convert' to the Church of England, or whether Lutheran orders and communion were deemed compatible with Anglican such that no 'conversion' was necessary. Norman Sykes asserts that one school of thought at the time held that the Lutherans and Anglicans were essentially in communion with on another. Others, particularly "High Churchmen" denied the "regularity" of Lutheran ordination; while others held that the Lutheran sacramental theology--the doctrine of "ubiquity"--was too Catholic. Did George I ever have to formally declare his Anglican conversion? I don't thinks so. And while supreme head of the Church of England he was simultaneously head of the Lutheran church of Hanover-Brunswick.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.65.128 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is a Protestant?

message: A BBC news article that can be found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12225093 indicates that there is an ongoing effort to amend the act to give more equality to first born daughters. Perhaps an interested editor could update the section. 129.67.172.102 (talk) 13:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Present Debate

message: William III of England, II of Scotland is not Jimmy's nephew? GoodDay (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that in question somewhere? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently so, at this article, as you've deleted it again. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My edit summary didn't indicate any questioning of the relationship. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  James II & VII's nephew 

message: Assuming the 16 parliaments will approve the 'genders are equal' amendment, will it keep Savanna Phillips ahead of any future brothers (as the Phillips' children will be the same generation as the Cambridge children)? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes only affect descendents of the Prince Charles. The old rules remain for the rest of the line of succession and their descendents save for the ban on marrying Catholics and the requirement to get the Queen's permission to marry. Of course, when you get beyond the immediate family one's place in succession is only an issue for bragging rights and is of little practical consequence. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if Charlie & his line get wiped out, the amendment to the succession is no more. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much, though I expect they'd just apply it to the new brood. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession reform 

message: Perhaps I am not understanding the prose, but it seems to me that over half of the LEAD has nothing to do with this Act. Is it not the case that settlement basically states that the laws of the colonies are the laws of the crown, and therefore, the Act of Settlement is the law of the colonies? If that is what it is indeed trying to say, then why is it even mentioned at all? This statement would be true for all laws, so it becomes as trivial as mentioning that the Act is written in English. Or is there something in the Act itself that pertains directly to Settlement, or vice versa? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is a fairly significant point that Canada (for example) cannot change the law regarding who is its own monarch without acting in consultation with the other nations who share its monarch.  This point is more relevant to the Act of Settlement than it is for most UK laws.  On the other hand, I don't know that that point needs to be in the LEAD.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I just cut out some of the fluff you were complaining about, and I added several other paragraphs to the lead so that it better summarizes the whole article.  Perhaps it's better now?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I reinserted a brief sentence about the act's having been separated into identical but distinct copies in some Commonwealth realms. It seems important to make that clear, so as to not mislead readers into thinking the act today remains only a British law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The LEAD 

message: In the lead, and elsewhere, a recent edit has changed "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic". This is against longstanding consensus, and contrary to current practice which refers to "Roman Catholic" in connection with succession to the Crown, as in s.2 of the Succession to the
Crown Act 2013, which reads: "Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic - (1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith. (2)...". Qexigator (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the word Roman in Roman Catholic is crucial. There is a reason why the Act refers to "Papists". Not all Catholics are "Papists". See also these two edits, which may be related to the one we're discussing here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite so, and, for the avoidance of doubt encyclopediacally, per Papist: ...referring to the Roman Catholic Church, its teachings, practices, or adherents. The term was coined during the English Reformation to denote a person whose loyalties were to the Pope, rather than to the Church of England. Over time, however, the term came to mean one who supported Papal authority over all Christians; it thus entered widespread use, especially among Anglicans and Presbyterians. Qexigator (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Agreed. There's also a matter of NPOV violation, in that allowing one denomination to exclusively appropriate a term ("catholic") that is also used by several others effectively involves us choosing who the "real" catholics are. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also per Catholicism: For many the term usually refers to Christians and churches...in full communion with the Holy See...many others use the term to refer to other churches with historical continuity from the first millennium. Qexigator (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic"? 

message: It is possible that "settlement" was meant in the sense of restricting inheritance of property (in this case, the crown), and not in the sense of "settling" or resolving some problem or issue. See Settlement (trust), Settled Land Acts and Fee tail. Anybody have any proof/disproof of this which could go in the article? Count Truthstein (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology and meaning of "settlement" 

message: This article notes the debate in 2010 that happened with William and Kate's marriage about the possible end of primogeniture.  Nowhere in it does it seem to note that these provisions of the Act of Settlement where overturned in 2013, before the birth of Kate's first child in Canada, the United Kingdom, St. Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and that there was an agreement in principle with the other realms to change the law retrospectively - (as a Canadian this is what I remembered about the UK and Canada).
Since this wikipedia article is primarily about the act itself and not changes made to it 312 years later I'm not sure, how or where this should be noted.  I'm also not really interested in researching which of the other common wealth realms followed through and which may not have, and when these follow throughs happened.  Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.
Jethro 82 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No changes to the succession have been implemented in any country. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

text: In Commonwealth realms, the law is not yet changed by a newspaper headline or the populist rhetoric of a politician, even one who is the monarch's first minister. This and connected articles are addressed to readers who are likely to be interested in the content and in the expectation that some may be sufficiently so as to follow some of the links.  --Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Primogeniture - 2013 

message: Parliment’s axing of all the Roman Catholics from the line of succession caused fifty-six people to be passed over to get to this unexpected choice. George I was once described as “some old rubbish got from somewhere to stop up a hole in the Constitution”. I think this would be a good addition to the article, but can not find the source. Does anyone recognise it? 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8D62:4BC2:F384:4F8F (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: [[George I of Great Britain]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Act of Settlement 1701. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003101512/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/P11.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/P11.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130110062651/http://www.ottawacitizen.com:80/opinion/op-ed/Succeeding+Canadian+throne/7651371/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Succeeding+Canadian+throne/7651371/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Act of Settlement 1701. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707011431/http://www2.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%20Release_2010_final.pdf to http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/independent_research/Presidents%20Release_2010_final.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/Succeeding%2BCanadian%2Bthrone/7651371/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070604070506/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200311/ai_n9341744 to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200311/ai_n9341744
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Act of Settlement 1701. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110528094354/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23929938-st-lucia-backs-change-to-laws-of-succession.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23929938-st-lucia-backs-change-to-laws-of-succession.do
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030022957/http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&featureId=6&pageId=26&id=4439 to http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=1&id=4439&featureId=6&pageId=26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926233729/http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/1773/1/ to http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/1773/1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: No problem with the addition but the reference provided in the original edit uses a source written by the editor, which is not available to the public. So I've retained the basic input and provided a new, third party reference.
Robinvp11 (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace reference in section on Opposition 

message: The clause tagged as dubious in the section about Australia is contradicted by the words which immediately follow. Can somebody check the cited source to check what Anne Twomey was really saying? Richard75 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: How could the 1791 act òf succession be passed to Scotland after the act of union.
A 95.149.95.180 (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  1701 act of succession 

message: The image needs correction, to bring into consistency. James II of England, should be James II of England & James VII of Scotland. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Stuart succession image 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: with all respect, Mr. Hilton is wrong where he states that the Dutch king has to be protestant. Our written constitution is strictly neutral where religion (and oaths) are concerned.
Faithfully yours,
Robert Prummel, Groningen in the Netjerlands. 2001:1C01:3B06:1900:CCBD:9C06:20D1:9915 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Dutch constitution