On the Act of Settlement...

[Yorel]

Assuming either William III & Mary II or Queen Anne & Prince George of Denmark had been able to leave surviving issue, would it have been proclaimed? I have the impression the Act was only proclaimed because neither Mary II nor Anne were able to leave surviving issue.

After all, when the Act was proclaimed in 1701, the situation was the following one:

• Mary II had died in 1694, childless. William III never remarried and apparently had no intentions to do so.
• Queen Anne, despite 18 pregnancies, had only one surviving son: Prince William, Duke of Gloucester. But he died of smallpox in 1700.

Because of this, had the Act not been proclaimed, the next King of Great Britain & Ireland would have been a Catholic, be it a Jacobite or not. George I and the Hannovers were the lowest in the rank of succession as they descended from Sophia of Hannover, the youngest daughter of Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James I & VI. However, being the only Protestants, they were the only ones that could have met the Parliament's requirements according to the Act.

But, were either Mary II or Anne to leave children behind, they would have a claim stronger than all the Catholic pretenders, save for the Jacobite ones since James Francis Edward Stuart should have been the successor of James II had the Glorious Revolution not happened. And unless the Jacobite Pretenders prove particularly threatening, I don't see how Parliament would feel the need to proclaim the Act of Settlement: the successor of Mary II, William III or Anne would have been a Protestant and would have been succeeded by Protestants.

So, would the Act of Settlement have been proclaimed had either Mary II (and thus William III) or Anne left surviving issue?

 

[Yorel]

No opinion on the question?

 

[Fletch]

The answer is yes. They wanted to ensure their position was secure. One heir does not change that.

 

[Arachnid]

The answer is yes. They wanted to ensure their position was secure. One heir does not change that.

Maybe, I think some kind of Act of Settlement would have been passed, including the No Catholics clause but it would probably have been less proscriptive and probably moved by the King rather than Parliament.

 

[mcdnab]

The Act was the direct result of the death of Anne's son William of Gloucester.

With a surviving heir of Anne or of William III it wouldn't be needed.

As the Bill of Rights 1689 (ENGLAND) had a clause barring Catholics and the Scots' Claim of Right (SCOTLAND) contained a similar clause;

"And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that 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, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same."