CORRECTION APPENDED

Tony Blair may no longer be the prime minister of the United Kingdom, but he is still making important news. Shortly before Christmas, Blair announced to the world that he is converting to the faith of his wife and children and becoming a Roman Catholic. While this may seem to be a personal matter of little relevance to us here in the United States, it is a historical event with many practical implications in Britain and in other countries around the world.

Throughout much of his prime ministership and public life, Blair had elected to attend Roman Catholic Masses instead of the Anglican services of his own church, the Church of England. He even received Holy Communion at Mass despite not being a Roman Catholic, a practice that was criticized by the Archbishop of Westminster at the time. So why did Blair wait until he left office to officially convert to Catholicism? Quite simply because he was prevented from doing so legally and politically.

Britain perhaps has had the most conflicts between Protestants and Catholics of any country in history. Following the decades of disputes and instability of the Reformation, the English Civil War, and reign of James II, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement in 1701 to avoid further future political crises. Of the act’s eight major provisions, two are still significant today: one that explicitly forbids Catholics from ascending to the throne and another that has been interpreted by some British legal scholars as forbidding Catholics from the Prime Ministership. Had Blair converted while in office, he may have set off an unnecessary legal and constitutional firestorm.

Blair’s conversion has re-ignited the centuries old debate about repealing or amending the archaic and discriminatory Act of Settlement. However, few serious and responsible politicians support taking such action, not because of religious bigotry, but because of political considerations. While anti-Catholic laws and provisions have no place in modern democratic societies, much less a nation as multicultural and pluralistic as Britain, any amendment to the Act of Settlement will greatly exacerbate the fragile political and constitutional state that Britain is currently in and could conceivably result in the break-up of the United Kingdom and Canada as we know them today.

As evidenced by the 2007 election of Alex Salmond, the head of the Scottish National Party (a political party that advocates an independent Scotland), there has been a furor of nationalistic fervor in Scotland. The Kingdoms of England and Scotland were united in 1707 to form the Kingdom of Great Britain under the provisions of the Act of Union. The Parliament of Scotland consented to the union in large part due to the guarantee of Protestant leadership provided for by the Act of Settlement. While neither Salmond nor the vast majority of present day Scots still harbor the anti-Catholic sentiments, an amendment to the Act of Settlement would give Salmond and his allies credence in the debate over Scottish Independence.

Moreover, any amendment to the Act of Settlement would likely trigger political unrest among the militant Northern Irish nationalists. Northern Ireland remained part of the United Kingdom following Irish independence in 1920 because of its significant Protestant majority, which wanted to be governed by the predominantly Protestant government of London, rather than the mostly Catholic government of Dublin. Amending the act could be viewed by the Protestants of Northern Ireland as betrayal on the part of London. Northern Irish Protestant extremists, who depended upon Downing Street to represent their interests, might conceivably throw their support behind radical groups such as the Ulster Defence Organization.

The consequences of modifying the act would not only be confined to the eastern shores of the Atlantic. In fact, Canada may experience more significant effects than the United Kingdom itself should the act be amended. Canada, still legally a commonwealth of the United Kingdom, has determined that the Act of Settlement is a part of Canadian constitutional law. Therefore, amending the act would require an amendment to the Canadian constitution as well. Although the vast majority of Canadians feel no allegiance to Britain and believe in republican status for Canada, it has remained a commonwealth because changing its political status would lend legitimacy to Québécois separatists who advocate for an independent Quebec. Thus, an amendment to the Canadian constitution catalyzed by the modification of the Act of Settlement could plausibly lead to the Republic of Canada and an independent Quebec. All of the remaining monarchies of the Commonwealth League of Nations may then be propelled to become republics as well. [See correction below.]

This is the massive global political domino effect that could result from the simple modification of the Act of Settlement. It is despicable and archaic that such anachronistic bigotry is present in the British legal code; however, it is understandable that so many politicians and leaders have avoided the issue and its associated can of worms all together. Nevertheless, it is time that British politicians find a solution to end this bigotry while being mindful of the practical political implications.



Jayadeep K. Manchi is a first-year student at Boston College.

CORRECTION: A Feb. 7 op-ed, "Britain and Catholicism" incorrectly stated that Canada is a commonwealth of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, it is sovereign and not subject to any British legislative power. However, Canada is a member of both the Commonwealth realm, an organization of 16 sovereign countries that recognize Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch, and the Commonwealth of Nations, an international organization composed of 53 sovereign states, many of which used to be British colonies. Also, the writer mistakenly referenced the "Commonwealth League of Nations." This organization does not exist. The writer intended to reference the Commonwealth of Nations, which is described above as an association of 53 independent states, a majority of which used to be British colonies.

Finally, while the editorial claimed that "the vast majority of Canadians feels no allegiance to Britain and believes in republican status for Canada," the matter is far more complex and public opinion polls show consistently ambivalent and sometimes conflicting feelings about the Canadians' allegiance to Britain. The Crimson regrets the error.