text:
Talk:Act of Settlement 1701

Catholicism
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)
 * 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)

Anglican
''Such decisions are made by the Prime Minister, whose own religion (if any) may be in conflict with the Church of England. This situation is rendered possible because, on the one hand, religious tests have never applied to public offices such as the Prime Minister (and under contemporary anti-discrimination laws it would be illegal to do so), while on the other hand, such a religious test not only is but must be applied to the monarch.''

I was under the impression that the Appointments Secretary who advises the Prime Minister on appointments of bishops and the like must be an Anglican, and that the Catholic Relief Act specifically forbids a Catholic from advising the monarch as to appointments within the CofE. Also the Queen is immune from prosecution and the appointment of a prime minister is one of the royal prerogatives which the courts historically have held to be outside the scope of judicial revieq. The Queen could refuse (in theory) to appoint a non-anglican as Prime Minister and there's nothing anyone could do about it in the courts. - Chrism 18:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

 * The Queen could in theory refuse to to appoint anyone for any reason. But to do so would be a revolutionary act and cause a crisis.  James II and Edward VIII learnt the consequences of such behaviour.  Iain Duncan-Smith and Charles Kennedy are Roman Catholics; Michael Howard is Jewish; Neville Chamberlain was Unitarian; Ramsey MacDonald and Alec Douglas-Hume were Scottish, while David Lloyd George was Welsh and disestablished the Church in Wales.  There has been no suggestion that any of them would be unable to be Prime Minister on religious grounds; the usual practice is to finger a convenient CofE cabinet minister to be responsible for bishops. --Henrygb 16:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean that if the duke of Bavaria and his wife converts to protestantism, the duke will be the rightfull heir to the British throne??

 * No. Three reasons at least:
 * the Jacobites lost
 * he is not the heir of Sophia Electress of Hanover
 * the spouse's religion at accession doesn't matter - it is the religion at marriage which counts --Henrygb 16:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Marriage to non-Protestants

 * 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)

 * Yes, so long as the descendant remains in communion with the Church of England. --Henrygb 11:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

"the losers"
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)

I was always under the impression that there were 57 Stuart rejects but the list provided above lists over one hundred. Obviously some of these were born after the appropriate date but which are the rejects and am I correct that there were 57? The article doesn't appear to answer this question. (Elephant53 12:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

 * 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)

What about the descendants of Karl Ludwig, Elector Palatine from his second marriage? Are they considered illegitimate for some reason? Doesn't the Act allow for the crown to pass to descendants from a second marriage made after the person in question is divorced? (i.e., to Charles and Camilla's children, if they were to miraculously have some now). I think the list above should include Karl's granddaughter Frederica Darcy, Countess FitzWalter, 3rd Countess of Mértola (1688-1751), whose representative today is Lady Diana Miller, 11th Countess of Mértola (b. 1920) (see Count of Mértola for her descent) —User:mathmannix 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

 * 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)

What if?
If the Queen and all her descendants die leaving no heirs the succession goes 'back up the tree' as it were, and this allows us to come up with an order of succession in which we list descendants in order and then go back up the tree when we run out. According to the general rules of succession as we all understand them this is an open-ended process, and provided we know the genealogy we can keep going and come up with a very long list of people, getting ever more distantly related to the present Queen as we go. But the Act of Settlement restricts all this to the descendants of one historical figure. Hypothetically speaking, if I was to wipe out all living descendants of Sophia, and I know there must be an enormous number by now, am I right in saying that no one would be entitled to succeed to the throne? We wouldn't be able to find a descendant of, let's say, Sophia's uncle, and give them the throne, because the Act means that she is the cut-off point. (I'm aware that all this is very poorly worded, but hopefully you'll get the gist of what I'm talking about.) What would happen in such a situation? — Trilobite (Talk) 12:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looking around I've found this list which lists 4583 people, and appears to be a comprehensive list of all Sophia's descendants as of 2001. It says nothing about what happens if the end of the line is reached, however. — Trilobite (Talk) 12:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Even in the incredibly unlikely event of them all dying there is no problem, as the title to the Crown is not entirely dependent upon statute; we could fall back on the common law (see my article at []).Ncox 02:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Except that the (overriding) statute law seems fairly explicit - the heir must be a descendant of Sophia... 136.2.1.101 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * What would happen is that Parliament would simply pass a new law regarding succession (it would probably do this even if all 5,000 were not wiped out, as many of that 5,000 would probably be considered unsuitable), the problem would be, how could Royal Assent to the law be given if there is no Monarch. An ex post facto law could be past - Parliament can do anything - yet the Monarch is part of that Parliament, and a circular reasoning situation could develop, with a law being valid because it was Assented to by the Monarch, but the Monarch, and the Assent, only being valid because of that law. A similar situation arose after King James's 'abdication'. See Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689. - Matthew238 08:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The UK parliament couldn't "simply pass a new law regarding succession" - the line of succession is under the shared control of 16 different countries, some of which have the Act of Settlement as an inherited part of their own constitution. By the convention laid out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (also a part of each Commonwealth Realm's constitution) no one country can alter the line of succession without the approval of the 15 others - and that includes the UK.  In Canada alone such a change would require the consent of all ten provincial legislatures, plus the federal parliament.  Not impossible, but clearly more than simply passing new legislation. --gbambino 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Obviously it would take agreement by all Commonwealth states to change the head of the Commonwealth, but is there a constitutional rule that each member must have the same monarch? A few years back I heard of a proposal in Australia to change the succession as to Australia alone (in favor of Anne).  —Tamfang 03:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The Queen's position as Head of the Commonwealth is ceremonial only, and has nothing to do with her roles as Head of State of sixteen independent Commonwealth Realms. For these sixteen countries the Statute of Westminster requires that they all be in agreement over any changes to the line of succession.  However, it's only a convention, and not legally binding.  So, technically Australia (or Canada, or the UK, or Jamaica, etc.) could break symmetry and create its own different line of succession, but this would breach convention - a convention which an Ontario judge said was strong enough to be one reason the court couldn't overturn the Act of Settlemnt within the Canadian constitution. --gbambino 15:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are several Republics in the Commonwealth, so I see no theoretical reason that there couldn't be a monarchy with its own king/queen. The interesting question is what would happen if, say, Australia passed a different succession law and therefore ended up with a different monarch than the rest of the Commonwealth. Would that new King (or Queen) of Australia move to Australia? If so, would Australia retain their Governor-General, or would the position now be moot, since their monarch would be in Australia, hence no need for a viceregal office? Nik42 06:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Also within the Commonwealth are a few kingdoms under different dynasties. So, yes, Australia, or Jamaica, or St. Kitts could alter their line of succession, thereby making them a kingdom with a separate monarch to the other 15 Commonwealth Realms, but still under the same House of Windsor.  It actually happened for one day in 1936, when all the Realm parliaments passed their respective acts allowing Edward VIII to abdicate, save for the Irish parliament, which didn't get around to it until a day later.  So, for one day each Realm had George VI as king, while Ireland still had Edward VIII.
 * I've heard that this was proposed in Australia some time ago: the Earl of Wessex, or some other junior Royal, would be selected as King of Australia. However, it never went through - most likely due to the questions you raise: Where would the sovereign live?  What would become of the Governor General?  Etc. Not to mention the fact that it still breaches the convention laid out in the Statute of Westminster, and the approval of the other 15 Realms would most likely still need to be sought, if only at least out of courtesy. --gbambino 16:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "By the convention laid out in the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, 1931 (also a part of each Commonwealth Realm's constitution) no one country can alter the line of succession without the approval of the 15 others - and that includes the UK"
 * The statute of Westminster does not prevent the UK parliament, and probably a number of other parliaments, from changing the line of succession, with or without the approval of the other countries. Parliament cannot bind itself. An old law, like the Statute of Westminster, cannot prevent Parliament from passing a new law. - Matthew238 07:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You couldn't fall back on the common law, as England & Scotland are different. There are 2 possibilities:

 * Most likely, the throne would become vacant & Parliament would choose a sovereign.
 * Alternatively, the Treaty of Union would be frustrated, England & SCotland would become separate kingdoms, & their thrones would pass to the next heirs under their respective laws, who might or might not gbe the same.

 * Peter jackson (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The real line of succession is the list of 39 people published by the palace. Whitaker's Almanack lists five additional names, and these can be considered royalty also rans. If the entire line suddenly died, married Catholics, or fled the country, parliament would have to declare the throne vacant as in 1688. It could then select another dynasty, adjust the succession rules, or leave it vacant. Figuring out who is 359th on the list or whatever is a little genealogists' pass time. Kauffner (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol The Act of Settlement will likely be amended before the line of succession runs out. Sooner or later an heir,maybe even the present heir presumptive, will disavow the Church of England. I mean, its all such nonsense isn't it? Being head of a church founded because its founder couldn't marry the woman he wanted.Gazzster (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what you're talking about. The real line of succession is the line of descendants of the Electress Sophia.  If the 44 people you mention all die, the throne would pass to Zenouska Mowatt.  If she died too, the throne would pass to the Earl of Harewood, and so forth - parliament could, of course, decide that it didn't want to do that, but it would require action.  Even the web page you refer to notes that protestant descendants of electress Sophia are eligible.  Is it your contention that Zenouska Mowatt and the Earl of Harewood are not protestant descendants of Sophia?  Or that an unofficial list on a web page trumps the actual words of the Act of Settlement?  The reason figuring out who is 359th in line is irrelevant is not because parliament would declare the throne vacant if everyone up through Princess Alexandra died.  It's because it's incredibly unlikely that anyone beyond the first five or so people in the line of succession would ever succeed - actuarially, I would guess that the chances that the Earl of Wessex or his descendants should ever succeed to the throne are not much better than the chances of whoever is 359th in line doing so. john k (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What about EU legislation? There is a UK - EU law contradiction.
I wonder if this Act would stand or fail in the EU supreme court?

It could probably justified on the grounds that its a legitimate restriction under the Equal Treatment Framework Directive (article 4 clause 2) - a religious body (in this case the CofE) can require its officers (in this case the Supreme Governor) to be an adherent of that religion. - Chrism 12:19, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * That is no good excuse, because it would be very easy to separate the role of head of CofE and that of the monarch, so there be no reason to argue for one via the other. But the point is rather moot, since monarchy and established church are concepts that are against human nature and thus must be struck down and the islands made into a secular republican democracy. - User:195.70.32.136 17:55, Dec 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Against human nature? Who established the monarchy and established church then? Aliens? IMHO a constitutional monarchy is vastly preferable to the American system of more politicians! Owain 17:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be easy to seperate the two positions. But the point is that in law they are combined and until they aren't, legally the prohibition stands. - Chrism 19:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And who is 195.80.32.136 to judge what is or is not against human nature? I don't think he or she is anymore qualified to judge that then those conservatives who judge certain sexual acts as being against human nature?  Maybe whoever this person is, they should keep in mind the tenant of judge not lest ye be judged.
 * JesseG 03:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see the arguement about having the CoE head being a CoE, requiring the head of state to be a certain religion is more shakey. The requirement that they can marry anyone except catholics is the hardest to justify, though. As it stands, the monarch can marry a jew, a muslim, a athetist, a jedi, or even a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but not a Catholic. Mad. MartinRe 22:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What I've heard in the past is that if William really had his head set on marrying a Catholic that Parliment would probably change the rules to accomodate him.
 * In 1980 the Cabinet set up a committee to investigate the implications of Prince Charles marrying a Roman Catholic, as there was the possibility of him marrying a Luxembourg princess. The Royal family personally have never had any problems marry whoever they want, it is Parliament which has left them in the present position.Ncox 02:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * JesseG 03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Two Part Debate
The Act seems to have two parts. Unfortunately, they seem to get entangled in the article. For example, in the paragraph trying to show both sides of removing the part 2 clause, it shows the proponent arguements for removing part 2, but the opponents' response seems to be defending part 1. It would be nicer if it were possible to break down the pros and cons into for/againt whole act, and for/against removing just that clause.
 * 1) The head of state must be a Protestant descendant of Sophia
 * 2) The Monarch/heir cannot marry a Catholic.

Tony Blair's views
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)

Adrian Hilton
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)

Catholic endorsement
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)

Commonwealth Realms
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)

Hello user 136 in configeration 1. above you mention that repeal or ammendment of the Act of Settlement in countries that have no constitutional ties to the UK could cause real world difficulties in other countries - potentialy breaking the personal union relationship between the Commonwealth Realms. Could you elaborate on what those difficulties would be ? ( considering that they have no constitutional ties )  Lejon 10:20 19 Mar 06

Act of Settlement 1700?
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)

The reason is that before 1793, Acts came into force on the first day of the session that parliament sat. See Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793. Kurando | ^_^ 09:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

The official short title of the Act is set by a later Act of Parliament as just "Act of Settlement" without the year. The Bill of Rights also has no year after it.Richard75 21:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

Restoring factually accurate Introduction
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)

 * The key thing is that it is the main Act of Parliament that governs the line of succession to the British and Commonwealth Realm thrones. I have rewritten it again to restore this fact. Astrotrain 15:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * 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)

Category:British laws
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)

 * 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)

 * It is not in a sub cat of British laws. Astrotrain 23:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes it is. --Mais oui! 08:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

foreign monarchs
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)

 * So much for that idea. —Tamfang (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The article states that this clause became dormant at the accession of Victoria, who could not inherit Hanover. In fact, George III, George IV, and William IV were English-born, so the article would not apply to them.Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Rendundant parts
Some of the aspects of the law listed would seem to no longer apply. If this is so, it should be stated - as is the case with "no monarch can leave the British Isles without the consent of Parliament". The section I'm talking about (althought I don't know for sure they no longer apply) are - -Matthew238 07:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That no foreigner—even if naturalized (unless they were born of English parents)—shall be allowed to be a Privy Councillor or a member of both Houses of Parliament, or hold "any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him".
 * That no person who has an office under the monarch or receives a pension from the Crown can be an MP. This provision was inserted to avoid unwelcome royal influence over the Commons.

 * The second point certainly still applies- as this is how an MP resigns from office before an election. I am not sure about the first one- but I think it still applies as well. Astrotrain 09:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

 * The first part in theory applies, but remember that citizens of the Commonwealth of Nations or the Republic of Ireland have never been treated as foreigners - they can certainly be MPs etc. - and for some but not all purposes European Union citizens are given the same rights as British citizens (e.g. most civil service posts are open to them). --Henrygb 21:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that naturalized citizens could run for parliament and serve in the military and government. And the second applies, it is even a part of the Australian written constitution - there have been court cases about it (see Phil Cleary). But how does it apply to ministers etc., who are members of parliament and hold office under the crown (eg. PM is First Lord of the Treasury).
 * In the past, when an MP became a minister, they had to resign from parliament and face a ministerial by-election. There were 667 such elections from the Reform Act to it being stopped by the Re-Election of Ministers Acts 1919 and 1926.--Henrygb 09:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

 * So the second one doesn't completely apply anymore. But what of the first? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew238 (talk • contribs).

 * See paragraphs 19 to 28 of to see the current position --Henrygb 22:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So I'm guessing naturalized citizens are now considered full citizens for all intents and purposes - they can run for parliament, etc. And of course citizens of Commonwealth countries have always been able to run for parliament and hold most public offices, even if they were no naturalized. - Matthew238 23:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That no monarch may leave the British Isles without the consent of Parliament.
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)

 * Perhaps to legitimize the theory that James II abdicated de facto when he fled. —Tamfang 05:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Where in the act does it say this? I can't find any reference to it. Bardcom (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

no consensus to move and the de facto naming standard argues very strongly against any move of this page in isolation. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this page be moved to Act of Settlement, 1701? Please discuss below. ~user:orngjce223 how am I typing? 18:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly all English+UK Acts of Parliament articles I've seen on Wikipedia have not used the comma before the year. In my view it should be left as it is.--Johnbull (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, but should be part of more general change to the rest of the articles on Act of Settlement disambiguation page at least. Not necessarily the specific format, but the disambiguating year should either be separated by a comma as proposed here, by parentheses, by using the word "of" which appears in many references to such statutes when the year is included (including the reference on the Act of Settlement disambiguation page to "a partial reversal of the Act of Settlement of 1652" and the like), or something along those lines.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The content of Category:Acts of the Parliament of England suggests that the existing standard follows the StatuteLaw.gov.uk site, with no comma. Unless there's been prior consensus for a new naming format for all such articles among a wide group of interested editors (and if there is, can you point me to their conversations?) then I can't see a reason to support. --DeLarge (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with both of the comments above. If there is a change to be made, the same change should be made to all of the articles in the category. As such, this would benefit from a more centralized discussion. Dekimasu よ! 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

There is an article "anti-catholicism in england" that cross references to here.

Attending Catholic services etc.
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)
 * 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)

http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1565208

The Queen forfeited the Crown amongst other ways by having Holy Communion at VESPERS at the Westminster Catholic church in 2005 and mixing with the Roman Catholic Church - the Church of England has refused to comment on the matter even though they were up in arms about it then. No No No No No No Yes (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19951201&id=phwMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SF0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6785,130711

There's no need to be rude... No No No No No No Yes (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 * 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)

 * 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)

Prior History of "quamdiu se bene gesserint"
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)

A form of a similar phrase used in Scotland, ad vitam aut culpam (for life or fault), can be found in Acts & Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, 1560-1618 (1839) in an entry dated "18 of Marche 1600",

 * "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)

It really worked
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)

Who is a Protestant?
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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

Present Debate
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)

I wonder, if preference for males is removed, will the Queen issue new letters patent governing the use of the style Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom? At present, only William's eldest son would be styled as prince during Elizabeth II's reign due to letters patent issued by George V. It wouldn't make any sense to see William's daughter called (eg) Lady Mary Windsor if she were ahead of her younger brother, (eg) Prince George, in the line of succession. Surtsicna (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Succession reform
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)

And will the right to succeed be limited to the descendants of a more recent monarch? If not and if the change won't be retroactive, how will it be possible to know who the new rules apply to? Surtsicna (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So, if Charlie & his line get wiped out, the amendment to the succession is no more. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, though I expect they'd just apply it to the new brood. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The LEAD
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)

LOL..I just came across this prose too. What ridiculous stilted pomposity! The lead has to be re-written completely by someone who does not fabulate day and night about Commonwealth Realms, Crowns and Thrones. --Lubiesque (talk) 12:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Excellent work all, the new LEAD is much better, IMHO. Kudos especially to BlueMoonlet. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The Act of Settlement and the Nationality Bar in the British Civil Service, et al.
I would most certainly not like to be "cocky", but this is first and foremost, although not solely, one of my country's current legislation, more so than a mere, simple piece of history in the history of the humankind, or anything else.

My request, be that as it may, at the minimum, is that the words "The role of foreigners in the British government was at one time addressed by the act, but subsequent laws have rendered those clauses dormant" – for it is obvious that it is factually incorrect – for in fact the clause is not in fact dormant, but in a sense still partially active – must be struck out.

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – as it is also in the United States of America – there is a bar, or prohibition, on the formal employment of aliens, or foreigners, in the British case, those without British nationality or British citizenship, into what we now called the Civil Service of the Ministries and Departments of Government, as what we now call civil servants, as well as the assumption or exercise of military, judicial, public or political functions or office, as well as the receipt of military commissions as officers of the Crown's Armed Forces, and the very statutory or legal basis or justification for such a bar or prohibition is indeed no other than the fifth paragraph of Section III of the Act of Settlement (O.S. 1700).

It is only dormant – an error probably perpetuated by a Britisher or a Briton, perhaps himself not of native stock – in the sense that the clause now no longer mean what it is, or what it originally was, intended or supposed to mean or read, for the fact that an amendment – without altering or modifying the text of (that is to say, without inserting new or removing existing words into or from) the Act of Settlement – by Part Two, Section Three, Sub-section Two (now repealed), of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 (c. 17) (Regnal. 4 and 5 Geo. 5) ("Section 3 of the Act of Settlement (which disqualifies naturalized aliens from holding certain offices) shall have effect as if the words " naturalized or " were omitted therefrom."), meant that naturalised (or naturalized, both spellings used interchangeably in the United Kingdom before the end of the Second World War) British subjects now equated ( = ), to and for all intents and purposes in the eyes of the law and of the State, "denizens of English descent or parentage", all but in name; that is to say, if you were a naturalised subject, you were now treated as if you were, in the subjunctive, "denizens of English descent or parentage".

That citizens from other parts of the British Commonwealth and Commonwealth of Nations, that citizens of the Republic of Ireland, that citizens from other parts of the European Union, that subjects and citizens of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, in the European Free Trade Association, or the E.F.T.A. (EFTA), and of the Swiss Confederation (or Switzerland), also in the European Free Trade Association, as well as that citizens and subjects of Turkey, are all in fact also eligible – after meeting certain conditions, and with a few restrictions – is governed by separate legislation and is beyond the scope of this current discussion.

-- KC9TV 09:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi. I see your point as questioning the clause "subsequent laws have rendered those clauses dormant."  I think you could have made your point with much less text, and certainly without casting aspersions on the nationality of other Wikipedia editors.
 * Given the lack of sources to attest to the complete dormancy of the provisions in question, I agree that the language should at least be made more vague on the point. I have rephrased it, and I hope you find this to be an improvement.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As a quick note, after I posted the above, KC9TV shortened his/her post, which ameliorates my criticism of its length. However, s/he did not make it clear whether my response was satisfactory.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The words "naturalized or" were removed by the Status of Aliens Act 1914. See http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/III#reference-c950584. It is not "partially active" as KC9TV said above. Count Truthstein (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph in lead

 * Anyone who becomes a Roman Catholic, or who marries a Roman Catholic, becomes disqualified to inherit the thrones under the Act of Settlement. The act also placed limits both on the role of foreigners in the British government and the power of the monarch with respect to parliament, though some of those provisions have been altered by subsequent legislation.

This paragraph was recently rewritten by with the summary "(c/e: multiple thrones; parliament not a proper noun)". I have no objection to the overall restructuring, but I dispute each of the points explicitly mentioned! —Tamfang (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Before the Union, the Act affected the single throne of England; after the Union, the Act affected the single throne of Great Britain.
 * If parliament is not a proper noun, it ought to be the parliament.
 * I'd hardly call my edit a "rewriting". Regardless, I don't understand your objections. There is more than one throne affected by the Act of Settlement; 16, to be precise. "Parliament" is not a proper noun; it is not the proper name of anything, nor does it even refer to a specific parliament, since, as with the thrones, the monarch is part of more than one parliament; many more than 16. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * the parliaments, then, or each parliament. — Are all the provisions of the AoS applicable to all the Commonwealth Realms? —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, something like that might be better.
 * And yes, the Act of Settlement is a applicable in all the realms. That is also explained in the lead. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * The last paragraph of the lead says "... the Act of Settlement remains today one of the main constitutional laws governing the succession to not only the throne of the United Kingdom, but also to those of the other Commonwealth realms ...," but where does it say anything about the applicability in the Other Realms of provisions other than those concerning the succession? —Tamfang (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the law is applicable in a country, all of the law is applicable, not just parts of it (unless other laws in that country or specific circumstances render redundant parts of said law). -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I still have no knowledge of the mechanism by which the AoS applies to the respective realms. Is all pre-independence legislation automatically incorporated into a new state's laws?  Does each one have an Act duplicating the AoS, or incorporating it by reference, in whole or in part?  For all I know, the Other Realms have laws saying only "Those provisions of the English Act of Settlement 1701 that concern the succession of monarchs shall apply here." —Tamfang (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in Canada, the whole act was incorporated verbatim into the country's constitution. I don't know about the other realms except that some, apparently, defer to the act as a British law, though any change the British parliament makes to the AoS wouldn't have effect in any of those realms because of the Statute of Westminster.
 * Anyway, what's the problem? The lead only talks about the AoS and succession in relation to the UK and the other Commonwealth realms. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I think both these issues can be addressed by paying proper attention to verb tense. I chose the tenses in this paragraph deliberately.

The first sentence is in the present tense and is meant to refer to the Act's current effect on the succession. I used the singular "throne", I suppose in a somewhat metaphorical sense to refer to the general office of monarch, but I don't greatly object to the plural.

The second sentence is in the past tense. Whatever the current effect of these provisions may be (if any) is much less interesting, it seems to me, than what they were intended to do in the first place. With that in mind, there is only one relevant parliament, which is that of England/GB/UK, so I would favor using "Parliament" as a proper noun. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if it is the English/British/UK parliament in a historical sense, the word "parliament" still does not deserve to have its "p" capitalised. "Parliament of England" is a proper noun; "parliament", even if it refers to the Parliament of England, is not. See WP:MOSCAPS. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If we added the word "the," then I agree that "parliament" would be a generic word (per WP:MOSCAPS as you cited), and properly uncapitalized. Without the word "the," however, "Parliament" is shorthand for "Parliament of the United Kingdom" (or of whatever) and is the name of an institution (again per WP:MOSCAPS) and thus capitalized.  This is very common usage; see, for example, Member of Parliament or Houses of Parliament.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where the MoS justifies what you suggest. In fact, it very clearly says such a thing is incorrect. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point to the part that "clearly says such a thing is incorrect." It seems very sensible to me, and I'm clearly not the only one who thinks so.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Where it says "Incorrect (generic): The University offers programs in arts and sciences." -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my posted dated 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC). We agree that "the Parliament" would be incorrect, as the word is generic in that case.  But without the word "the," it is the name of an institution (specifically, it's a shorthand for the full name).  This is also covered in the very same section of the MoS.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Parliament" isn't the name of any institution in the UK, though; there is "the Parliament of Scotland", "the Parliament of the United Kingdom", etc. I've made a slight adjustment to the lead that both specifies which parliament is being referred to and keeps "parlaiment" with a capital "p". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part is clearly incorrect — Parliament or the parliament? —Tamfang (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic" or "Catholic"?
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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Note, too, that every Christian church uses the Nicene Creed. It contains the phrase ‘I believe in one Catholic, and Apostolic Church’.

Catholic, as it is used in the Nicene Creed, means universal. The church is a reality that is pertinent to everyone universally. There is no one to whom the church cannot minister and to whom its message cannot reach. Blocked for none, the church’s roles are full of sinners of all stripes, their admission secured by the stripes that Jesus Christ bore. That is a basic doctrine of the faith.

The Church of Rome calls itself ‘the Catholic Church’. It is, but so are all the others. So, non- members often call it the ‘Roman Catholic Church’. This is something of a fudge, but seems the best way to be avoid confusion. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8D62:4BC2:F384:4F8F (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Etymology and meaning of "settlement"
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)

End of Primogeniture - 2013
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)
 * No changes to the succession have been implemented in any country. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Qexigator (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

George I of Great Britain
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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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/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)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Replace reference in section on Opposition
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)

Dubious
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)

1701 act of succession
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)

House of Stuart succession image
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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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)
 * Coat of Arms of England (1694-1702).svg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
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)
 * Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.svg

The Dutch constitution
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)

title: Talk:Act of Settlement 1701


text:
Talk:Aurora

Aurora Noise
The claim that sunlight striking the particles trapped by the inversion causes a noise is nonsense, this would happen at dawn, not during the night when aurora noise is claimed to be heard. How these particles from 100km to 1000km in altitude make it down to 70m. A low level temperature inversion reflects sound, so noises heard may have a source 20km away. The first reference requires giving your info to view article, second reference is no longer avail on site. 2001:56A:F9C9:1900:44D6:B0C6:2D4E:E34E (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Could there be a bit clearer summary for amateurs?
I went to this article to confirm that auroras are indeed solar wind particles hitting upper atmosphere particles, exciting them and emitting energy in the form of light. However, it's really hard to find this information in the article, it's quite obfuscated. There is various talk of "disturbances in the magnetosphere" and "particles altering trajectories" and "interaction of solar wind and magnetosphere". I mean, I am sure it's all scientifically correct, but isn't the basic fact of particles hitting particles a bit more understandable to the average reader? I guess it requires a brave person to make such an edit. Jackissimus (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Aurora
Is an aurora dangerous? Is an aurora dangerous? 122.161.52.154 (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I think you are in the wrong place. This section is for discussing the article itself, not asking questions about the article. To answer your question, no an aurora is not dangerous. Luna Wagner (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Earliest depiction of Auroras
"The earliest depiction of the aurora may have been in Cro-Magnon cave paintings of northern Spain dating to 30,000 BC."

Is there a real source for this instead of The Times' "20 surprising facts you might not know about the northern lights" ? I couldn't find anything myself except maybe a scientific ebook stuck behind a paywall. Anyway right now it doesn't seem very trustworthy Absobel (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi . I have access to the ebook. From page 12: Some of the drawings made by the Cro-Magnon people on the walls and ceilings of caves in southern France most probably depict the northern lights. These drawings date back 30,000 years. It is not mentioned whether these are the earliest depictions, however.
 * I have found the full claim repeated in two other books, 1, 2. Both cite Siscoe 1976, which does not appear to be available online. For now, I think it will be sufficient to cite 1, but it would be great if another editor could check Siscoe's paper to verify. CoronalMassAffection 𝛿 talkcontribs 18:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove Earth
Remove any specifications lf Earth. Aurorae can happen in any atmosphere, even some stars, such as brown dwarves. 199.45.195.249 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 * We live on earth, so I believe it is highly relevant to talk about aurora on earth primarily. It is good to mention that they may also occur in other atmospheres, but not enough to warrant removing earth from the article. Luna Wagner (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Use one plural
Currently the article uses both plural forms (aurorae and auroras). I am of the opinion that it would be better to use only one plural. My preference is auroras, but either is fine. Luna Wagner (talk)

Subject-subject agreement
In the first paragraph, the Northern Lights are equated to the Aurora Borealis. However, aurora itself is singular, as stated earlier in said paragraph. Could someone please change those instances to Aurorae? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

 * @1P4S5e As you can see in the Google Ngram Viewer, both aurora borealis and northern lights are more common than aurorae [sic] borealis and northern light  [sic], respectively. Mat0329Lo (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo Thus? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e It's more important for Wikipedia to adhere to a policy of descriptivism rather than attempt to prescribe to a never-used 'correct" term. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, attempting to reflect the world, WP:NOT attempting to pontificate its own reality. Mat0329Lo (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo Me and you would both agree that which reflects the world to not necessarily correct. If that does not matter, then what is the point of regulatory authorities, such as those of the French Academy or for sport, say badminton? Or Wikipedia? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e Not everybody subscribes to the Académie Française, like on the case of oignon 'onion' and ognon. Wikipedia also relies heavily on common usage, like with the Chinese Communist Party (common usage, not sanctioned by the party) and the Communist Party of China (officially-sanctioned translation, not commonly used). Mat0329Lo (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo So are you saying that the Académie Française is irrelevant? 1P4S5e (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e I'm saying that prescriptivism isn't exactly something that is welcomed, in the world overall (Académie Française) or in Wikipedia (Communist Party of China). Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @[User:Mat0329] Thus, in your view, if the object cases me and you are used as subjects instead of the subject cases you and I have acquired widespread usage, then should style guides (as the English language has no regulatory authority) recommend me and you instead of you and I? 1P4S5e (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e Then why have many styles guides changed from Internet to internet, or accepted the singular they? Mat0329Lo (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo How does that relate to my question? 1P4S5e (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e That is to say, we do not necessarily follow the "officially-prescribed" guidelines. Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To relate back to your original problems with aurora borealis and northern lights, why is it that northern lights and aurora borealis be two different names for the same thing? Why can aurora borealis not be interpreted by some as a single meteorological light, while northern lights be interpreted as several different types of lights in the same event? They are, after all, two different names for the same thing, and equally valid names for the same thing. Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, guidelines are fluid and flexible. Just as yesterday's to go boldly is today's to boldly go, today's you and I could as well be tomorrow's me and you. Mat0329Lo (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo If the two are equated to each other and yet are singular and plural, respectively, then that is absolutely and most definitely incorrect. To go boldly and to boldly go have the same meaning, whilst the Northern Lights and an Aurora Borealis do not. Nor is singular and plural simply "guidelines." Any graduate of first grade would understand that a car and two cars are different things, regardless of language. Also, even if Northern Lights and Aurora Borealis are more common than Northern Light and Aurorae Borealis, that does not mean the two should be equated. After all, if a majority believe in the flat earth, that does not, by any means, turn the third rock from the Sun flat. Whilst one might argue that language is fluid and, if understandable, despite being incorrect in the eyes of grammaticians and myself, valid, then that same view would render any regulatory authority or style guide obsolete. Do you believe so? 1P4S5e (talk) 23:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e Would you not, however, agree that aurora borealis and northern lights both refer to the same thing? Would you not agree that it would be more useful to the average person to equate the two? Mat0329Lo (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo Do car and cars both refer to the same thing? Also, just because two words refer to the same thing, that does not mean that they equated to each other. 1P4S5e (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e "...Also commonly known as the northern lights (aurora borealis) or southern lights (aurora australis),(The aurorae seen in northern latitudes, around the Arctic, can be referred to as the northern lights or aurora borealis, while those seen in southern latitudes, around the Antarctic, are known as the southern lights or aurora australis. Polar lights and aurora polaris are the more general equivalents of these terms.)"

 * Do you not agree that, in this quotation, they refer to the same thing as much as math and maths? Mat0329Lo (talk) 01:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo Math and maths both are abbreviated forms of mathematics, are they not? 1P4S5e (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e Aurora borealis and northern lights both are names for an aurora that occurs near the north pole, are they not? Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Math and maths are both the abbreviated form of a plural noun, whilst the Aurora Borealis and Northern Lights are singular and plural respectively. Thus the former terms may be equated, whilst the latter terms may not. 1P4S5e (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e However, are they nevertheless names for the same phenomenon? Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If Volkswagen and Volkswagens are names for cars of the same line, then yes. Yet how does that relate? Simply because the two are both names for the same phenomenon, that does not mean they should be equated, as is done in the above quotation you so graciously provided. 1P4S5e (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e I would like to point out to the Most Honorable Gentleman from Somewhere that the term aurora borealis seems to be uncountable in English. I apologize to My Honorable Friend that I could not find a source that My Friend may find more acceptable, knowing him, as little sources even mention aurorae borealis (note: not aurorae by itself, but rather the entire phrase). Mat0329Lo (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Aurora borealis is not English, my friend. Invoke whatever god you may for this debate, yet you can not, nor will ever be able to equate a singular term to a plural term. Enjoy your evening. 1P4S5e (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e Neither are the terms maître d'hôtel or naïve, but I should think that the Honorable Gentleman (who should please have the courtesy to mention me) should review a small term called loanwords. Mat0329Lo (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo The want-to-be- yet-not-so-Honourable Gentleman from Old Sarum at most should at least consider how maître d'hôtel or naïve relate to his argument. 1P4S5e (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @1P4S5e The Gentleman should at least consider that it may be possible for a language to adopt words from other languages in this fashion. Mat0329Lo (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As to the Gentleman's assertion that it should be impossible to equate a plural with a singular, I should consult the word, which is commonly used in the singular in English, but comes from the Italian plural . Mat0329Lo (talk) 14:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo Key word: commonly. 1P4S5e (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Given how great the margins are on my use of the word commonly, compared to something like the use of CPC vs CCP, I'd think that since Wikipedia generally has turned to popular usage for something with far smaller margins, the Honorable Gentleman should agree with me that the word commonly in this case should be a good support for my argument.
 * Even disregarding my commonality argument, I deign to propose to the Honorable Gentleman that my proposition that it is uncountable in English should be as good as an argument. Mat0329Lo (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I should deign to remove the phrase northern light from consideration in my Ngram viewer since it could commonly be used in a sense other than that which we are speaking currently (as in the northern light shined in my face, meaning the light from the north shined in my face), and I hope that the Gentleman should be satisfied with these margins of common usage. Mat0329Lo (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo I would like to hear the Honourable Gentleman's opinion on whether scientific terms are English or Latin. 1P4S5e (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I should dare to assume, given that it is embedded in an English article, that it should be interpreted as English in this case. Mat0329Lo (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mat0329Lo Non-English terms exist in English Wikipedia articles. Also, I am asking whether or not scientific terms are English or Latin, embedded within Wikipedia or otherwise. 1P4S5e (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would dare to point out to the Honourable Gentleman that Wikipedia normally uses a language tag when embedding foreign tongues for accessibility and other purposes, as in Latine, but in this case, it has been left bare.
 * So, in this case, I would use it as in English, or according to the customs that the scientific community has adopted, in this case, aurora borealis. Mat0329Lo (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

comment
I suggest to add the transitions responsible for the two oxygen lines.

I have wondered why the green line is not produced at top height, since the shorter lifetime [oh, I would like to see word lifetime after 0.7 and 107 s] should make it always stronger. I feel that the collisions with N2 may supply more energy to O than the mechanisms active above, so may populate the 2nd excited level (1S) and not only the first (1D). If I am correct, the red transition is NOT suppressed as says the article, is simply masked by the green one.

Also adding the spectroscopic name of the N2 transition is welcomed.

Excuse my poor english - I have no more access to the university library (I am aged) and I cannot find the needed references in the books that I knew.

pietro151.29.78.113 (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Aurora


text:
Swiss Bank Corporation

Swiss Bank Corporation (French: Société de banque suisse; German: Schweizerischer Bankverein) was a Swiss investment bank and financial services company located in Switzerland. Prior to its merger, the bank was the third largest in Switzerland, with over CHF 300 billion of assets and CHF 11.7 billion of equity.

Throughout the 1990s, SBC engaged in a large growth initiative, shifting its focus from traditional commercial banking into investment banking, in an effort to match its larger Swiss rival Credit Suisse. As part of this strategy, SBC acquired US-based investment bank Dillon Read & Co. as well as London-based merchant bank S.G. Warburg in the mid-1990s. SBC also acquired Chicago-based Brinson Partners and O'Connor & Associates. These acquisitions formed the basis for a global investment banking business.

In 1998, SBC merged with Union Bank of Switzerland to form UBS, the largest bank in Europe and the second largest bank in the world. The company's logo, which featured three keys, symbolizing "confidence, security, and discretion", was adopted by UBS after the 1998 merger. Although the combination of the two banks was billed as a merger of equals, it quickly became evident that from a management perspective, it was SBC that was buying UBS. Nearly 80% of the top management positions were filled by legacy Swiss Bank professionals. Today, what was SBC forms the core of many of UBS's businesses, particularly UBS Investment Bank.

History
Swiss Bank Corporation traces its history to 1854. In that year, six private banking firms in Basel, Switzerland, pooled their resources to form the Bankverein, a consortium that acted as an underwriting syndicate for its member banks. Among the original member banks were Bischoff zu St Alban, Ehinger & Cie., J. Merian-Forcart, Passavant & Cie., J. Riggenbach and von Speyr & Cie. The establishment of joint-stock banks in Switzerland such as Swiss Bank's earliest predecessors (often structured as a Swiss Verein) was driven by the industrialization of the country and the construction of railroads in the mid-19th century.

The Basler Bankverein was formally organized in 1872 in Basel, replacing the original Bankverein consortium. Basler Bankverein was founded with an initial commitment of CHF 30 million, of which CHF 6 million of initial share capital was paid in. Among the Bankverein's early backers was the Bank in Winterthur, one of the early predecessors of the Union Bank of Switzerland. The bank experienced initial growing pains after heavy losses in Germany caused the bank to suspend its dividend in favor of a loss reserve. By 1879, Basler Bankverein has accumulated enough capital to resume dividends, initially at an 8% annual rate and then increasing to 10% in 1880.

Basler Bankverein later combined with Zürcher Bankverein in 1895 to become the Basler & Zürcher Bankverein. The next year, Basler Depositenbank and Schweizerische Unionbank were acquired. After the take-over of the Basler Depositenbank, the bank changes its name to Schweizerischer Bankverein (Swiss Bank). The English name of the bank was changed to Swiss Bank Corporation in 1917.

1900–1939
SBC continued to grow in the early decades of the 20th century, acquiring weaker rivals. In 1906, SBC purchased Banque d'Espine, Fatio & Cie, establishing a branch in Geneva, Switzerland, for the first time. Two years later, in 1908, the bank acquired Fratelli Pasquali, a bank in Chiasso, Switzerland, its first representation in the Italian-speaking portion of the country. This was followed by the 1909 acquisition of Bank für Appenzell (est. 1866) and the 1912 acquisition of Banque d'Escompte et de Dépots.

The onset of World War I put a hold on much of the bank's development. Although SBC survived the war intact, it suffered the loss of its investments in a number of large industrial companies. Nevertheless, the bank surpassed CHF 1 billion for the first time at the end of 1918 and grew to 2,000 employees by 1920. In 1918, SBC purchased Métaux Précieux SA Métalor to refine precious metals and produce bank ingots. the company would be established as a separate subsidiary in 1936 and spun off in 1998. The impact of the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression would be severe, particularly as the Swiss franc suffered major devaluation in 1936. The bank would see its assets fall from a 1929 peak of CHF 1.6 billion to its 1918 levels of CHF 1 billion by 1936.

In 1937, SBC adopted its three keys logo symbolizing confidence, security and discretion. The logo was designed by a Swiss artist and illustrator, Warja Honegger-Lavater.

Activities in World War II
On the eve of World War II, SBC was the recipient of large influxes of foreign funds for safekeeping. Just prior to the outbreak of World War II, in 1939, Swiss Bank Corporation made the timely decision to open an office in New York City. The office was able to begin operations, located in the Equitable Building, just weeks after the outbreak of the war and was intended as a safe place to store assets in case of an invasion. During the war, the bank's traditional business fell off and the Swiss government became its largest client. Overall, SBC saw its business grow as a result of its wartime government underwriting business.

Decades after the war, it was demonstrated that Swiss Bank Corporation likely took an active role in trading stolen gold, securities and other assets during World War II.

In 1997, the World Jewish Congress lawsuit against Swiss banks (WJC) was launched to retrieve deposits made by victims of Nazi persecution during and prior to World War II. Negotiations involving SBC's successor UBS, Credit Suisse, the World Jewish Congress and Stuart Eizenstat, on behalf of the US, ultimately resulted in a settlement of US$1.25 billion in August 1998 paid by the two large Swiss banks UBS and Credit Suisse. The settlement, which coincided with UBS's merger with Swiss Bank, together with the bank's embarrassment in the Long Term Capital Management collapse in 1998 brought a degree of closure to the issue.

1945–1990
Swiss Bank Corporation found itself in relatively strong financial condition at the end of World War II, with CHF 1.8 billion of assets. By contrast, the Basler Handelsbank (Commercial Bank of Basel), founded in 1862 and one of the largest banks in Switzerland, was insolvent at the end of the war and was consequently acquired by SBC in 1945. SBC remained among the Swiss government's leading underwriters of debt in the post-war years. However, by 1947 SBC was shifting its focus back to its traditional business of lending money principally to private companies as part of the postwar rebuilding of Europe. Meanwhile, the firm continued its expansion to international markets, particularly the United States where SBC focused primarily on commercial banking for corporate clients. Within Switzerland, SBC remained a full-service bank with a domestic retail banking network and an asset management business.

SBC prospered throughout the 1950s and embarked on a period of sustained growth. The bank, which had entered the 1950s with 31 Branch Offices in Switzerland and three abroad, more than doubled its assets from the end of the war to CHF 4 billion by the end of the 1950s and doubled assets again by the mid-1960s, exceeding CHF 10 billion in 1965. SBC acquired Banque Populaire Valaisanne, Sion, Switzerland, and the Banque Populaire de Sierre. The firm continued to open new offices in the US in the mid-1960s and it was also at this time that SBC began to expand into Asia and opened representative offices throughout Latin America. The bank opened a full branch office in Tokyo in 1970. The bank also made a number of acquisitions to enhance its position in various products. SBC acquired a controlling interest in Frei, Treig & Cie. in 1968, Warag Bank in 1970 and Bank Prokredit in 1979 (later sold to GE Capital in 1997). All three banks focused on consumer lending. Similarly, SBC acquired a number of banks in the private banking sector, including Ehinger & Cie. in 1974; Armand von Ernst & Cie. and Adler & Co. in 1976; and a majority interest in Geneva-based Ferrier Lullin & Cie. in 1978. The bank continued its consolidation of Swiss banks acquiring Banque Commerciale de Sion in 1978 and in 1979 acquired Handwerkerbank Basle, the Banca Prealpina SA and Bank für Hypothekarkredite.

As its own home market was highly competitive, SBC focused on commercial banking for American and other multinational companies. Through 1979, SBC was consistently the largest of the three major Swiss Bank by assets, except for short periods in 1962 and 1968 when UBS temporarily moved ahead of SBC. After 1979, although its balance sheet had grown to CHF 74 billion of assets, the bank would typically rank second to UBS which firmly established itself as the largest Swiss bank in the 1980s. SBC would retain this position for the next 15 years until Credit Suisse leapfrogged into the top spot following its 1995 acquisitions of Schweizerische Volksbank and Winterthur Group.

Aggressive acquisitions (1990–1998)

Swiss Bank began the 1990s as the weakest of the "Big Three" Swiss banks but by the end of 1997 would be the driving force behind the merger with Union Bank of Switzerland. SBC had been impacted by losses on its real estate investments and a series of minor controversies, despite the bank's historically conservative posture. Beginning in the 1980s, SBC along with its Swiss peers began to embrace a more aggressive strategy to keep up with competitors in the US, Japan, Germany and the UK. The bank signaled its new posture in 1990 when it opened its new US headquarters, Swiss Bank Tower, a 29 floor building on 49th Street, adjoining Saks Fifth Avenue.

SBC shifted its focus from traditional commercial banking toward investment banking with an emphasis on building its trading operations. To bolster its trading initiative, in 1992, SBC acquired O'Connor & Associates, a Chicago-based options trading firm, with an expertise in financial derivatives. O'Connor was founded in 1977 by mathematician Michael Greenbaum and was named for Edmund (Ed) and Williams (Bill) O'Connor. The O'Connor brothers had made a fortune trading grain on the Chicago Board of Trade and founded a First Options, a clearing house business. The O'Connors provided Greenbaum, who had run risk management for First Options, with the capital to start his own firm. SBC had established a strategic relationship with O'Connor, which was the largest market maker in the financial options exchanges in the US, beginning in 1988. O'Connor had been looking to partner with a larger financial institution and in 1989 entered into a currency joint venture with SBC that proved to be the first step towards a sale of O'Connor to SBC. Following the merger, O'Connor was combined with SBC's money market, capital market and currency market activities to form a globally integrated capital markets and treasury operation. A number of O'Connor executives were brought into key positions within the bank in an attempt to cultivate a more entrepreneurial culture at SBC.

In 1994, SBC followed up its acquisition of O'Connor by acquiring Brinson Partners an asset management firm focused on providing access for US institutions to global markets. Founded by Gary P. Brinson, an innovator in financial management, Brinson Partners had emerged as one of largest managers of pension plans and also managed a series of mutual funds. Brinson was a pioneer in the development of the theory of asset allocation which had largely become conventional wisdom among money managers in the 1980s and 1990s. Brinson had begun working at First Chicago Corporation in the 1970s and by 1981 began building the business that would become Brinson Partners. In 1989, Brinson led a US$100 million management buyout of his firm from First Chicago Corporation and over the next five years built up the firm to approximately US$36 billion of assets under management. SBC paid US$750 million to acquire Brinson Partners, which resulted in a profit to Brinson and his partners of US$460 million on the sale of their 75% stake in the company. Following the acquisition of Brinson Partners, Gary Brinson ran SBC's asset management business and after the merger with UBS, Brinson was named chief investment officer of UBS Global Asset Management.

SBC's next made a major push into investment banking with the acquisition of S.G. Warburg & Co. a leading British investment banking firm in 1995 for US$1.4 billion. S.G. Warburg was founded by Siegmund Warburg, a member of the Warburg banking family. After World War II, S.G. Warburg established a reputation as a daring merchant bank that grew to be one of the most respected investment banks in London. Following a flawed and costly expansion into the US, in 1994 a merger was announced with Morgan Stanley, but the talks collapsed. The following year S.G. Warburg was purchased by Swiss Bank Corporation. The bank merged S.G. Warburg with its own existing investment banking unit to create SBC Warburg, which became a leading player in global investment banking.

Two years later, in 1997, SBC paid US$600 million to acquire Dillon, Read & Co., a white shoe US investment banking firm considered to be a member of the bulge bracket. Dillon, Read, which traced its roots to the 1830s was among the powerhouse firms on Wall Street in the 1920s and 1930s and by the 1990s had a particularly strong mergers and acquisitions advisory group. Dillon Read had been in negotiations to sell itself to ING which owned 25% of the firm already, however Dillon Read partners balked at ING's integration plans. After its acquisition by SBC, Dillon Read was merged with SBC-Warburg to create SBC-Warburg Dillon Read. The Dillon Read name was discontinued after the merger with Union Bank of Switzerland although it was brought back in 2005 as Dillon Read Capital Management, UBS's ill-fated hedge fund operations.

Merger with Union Bank of Switzerland
Aggressively pushing ahead its various acquisitions, UBS was mired in a series of entanglements with activist shareholders who were critical of bank's relatively conservative management. Martin Ebner, through his investment trust, BK Vision became the largest shareholder in UBS and attempted to force a major restructuring of the bank’s operations. The groundwork for the merger of SBC and UBS was actually laid by their mutual competitor, Credit Suisse which had approached UBS about a merger that would have created the second largest bank in the world in 1996. UBS's management and board unanimously rebuffed the proposed merger. Ebner, who supported the idea of a merger, led a major shareholder revolt that resulted in the replacement of UBS's chairman, Robert Studer. Studer's successor Mathis Cabiallavetta would be one of the key architects of the merger with SBC.

On December 8, 1997, Union Bank of Switzerland and SBC announced an all-stock merger. At the time of the merger, Union Bank of Switzerland and Swiss Bank Corporation were the second and third largest banks in Switzerland, respectively, both trailing Credit Suisse. Discussions between the two banks had begun several months earlier, less than a year after rebuffing Credit Suisse's merger overtures.

The all-stock merger resulted in the creation UBS AG, a huge new bank with total assets of more than US$590 billion. Also referred to as the "New UBS" to distinguish itself from the former Union Bank of Switzerland, the combined bank became the second largest in the world, at that time, behind only the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. Additionally, the merger pulled together the banks' various asset businesses to create the world's largest money manager, with approximately US$910 billion in assets under management.

The merger, which was billed as a merger of equals, resulted in SBC's shareholders receiving 40% of the bank's common shares and Union Bank's shareholders receiving 60% of the combined company. SBC's Marcel Ospel was named chief executive officer while Union Bank's Mathis Cabiallavetta became chairman of the new bank. However, it quickly became evident that from a management perspective, it was SBC that was buying UBS as nearly 80% of the top management positions were filled by legacy Swiss Bank professionals. Additionally, UBS professionals suffered more headcount reductions, particularly in the investment banking unit where there were heavy cuts in the corporate finance and equities businesses. Prior to the merger, Swiss Bank Corporation had built a global investment banking business, Warburg Dillon Read through its acquisitions of Dillon Read in New York and S.G. Warburg in London. SBC was generally considered to be further along than UBS in developing its international investment banking business, particularly in the higher margin advisory businesses where Warburg Dillon Read was considered to be the more established platform.

After the merger was completed, it was widely speculated that a series of losses suffered by UBS on its equity derivative positions in late 1997 provided SBC with the leverage it required to consummate the merger. It would become clear that the derivatives losses prompted UBS to accept the terms proposed by SBC more readily than they otherwise would have.

After the merger

UBS, the successor of the Union Bank of Switzerland, is among the largest diversified financial institutions in the world. As of 2010, UBS operated in all of the major financial centers worldwide with offices in over 50 countries and 64,000 employees globally.

In November 2000, UBS merged with Paine Webber an American stock brokerage and asset management firm led by chairman and CEO, Donald Marron. The acquisition pushed UBS to the top Wealth and Asset Management Firm in the world. Initially the business was given the divisional name "UBS PaineWebber" but in 2003 the 123-year-old name Paine Webber disappeared when it was renamed "UBS Wealth Management USA."

The bank would grow considerably in the 2000s, building a large investment banking franchise to compete with the major US and European bulge bracket firms. However, UBS suffered major setbacks in 2007, 2008 and 2009. UBS suffered among the largest losses of any European bank during the subprime mortgage crisis and the bank was required to raise large amounts of outside capital from the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation, the Swiss government and through a series of equity offerings in 2008 and 2009.

Acquisition history
Swiss Bank Corporation, prior to its merger with Union Bank of Switzerland was the result of the combination of dozens of individual firms, many of which date to the 19th century. The following is an illustration of the company's major mergers and acquisitions and historical predecessors, although this is not necessarily a comprehensive list:

title: Swiss Bank Corporation


text:
User talk:Subsidiarity3

I have interests in religion, military history and computer games. I live and work in Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ingvar. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ingvar~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Subsidiarity3