Republic Versus Monarchy - part one, section five

A Monarchy built on religious discrimination

The English Monarch, also being Australia's Head of State, must be an Anglican. Indeed, the Monarch fulfils the role of the head of the Anglican Church. That the Monarch must be an Anglican is a requirement laid down by U.K. law, as set out in the Act of Settlement, 1701.(10)

Several other British laws relate to the religion of their Monarch. The Bill of Rights, 1689, excludes from the throne all Catholics, and those married to Catholics, and the Accession Declaration Act, 1910, requires that the Sovereign must declare himself, or herself, a faithful Protestant who will uphold the Protestant Succession.(11)

This is discrimination against all those who belong to other Christian denominations and to all other religions, as well as to agnostics and atheists.

It is unthinkable, in our society of religious freedom, that only Anglicans may be allowed to be the Australian Head of State. If this requirement was set down for Australian parliamentarians, there would be a massive public outcry.

This is just another example of how divisive and historically outmoded an institution the English Monarchy is.

NOTE: As British law prevents a Catholic, or anyone married to a Catholic, succeeding to the throne, when Prince Michael of Kent (then 16th in the line of succession) married Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz (a Catholic) in 1978, he had to relinquish his right of succession. Similarly, when the Earl of St. Andrews (then 17th in the line of succession) married Sylvia Tomaselli, in 1988, he too had to renounce his right of succession. But as Prince Michael declared that his children would be brought up in the Anglican faith, they remain in the line of succession.(12)

Republic Versus Monarchy

Australian Nationalism Information Database -