Re: if Prince William...

On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:04:43 +0000 (UTC), "Graham Truesdale"
<graham.truesdale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

><WmAddams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:ju5im1t346r3kom67iq6nnd9thq6mff1d0@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Maybe and maybe not. It's hard to say, because nobody has ever been barred from
>> succeeding to the Throne based on those clauses of the Act of Settlement, so
>> their meaning has never been determined.
>
>As I have said before, many people in the 18thC were barred from public office
>under the provisons of the Test Acts. So maybe definitions from that context might
>be helpful?
>
The Test Act provisions were different. Although the oath of supremacy
had to be taken, the most important part was the "sacramental test".
Candidates for office were required to produce a certificate in a
standard form from the officiating clergyman that they had taken
communion at an Anglican service. The growing feeling among some of
the clergy that this was a misuse of the sacrament contributed to the
eventual repeal of the Act.

The test act is at http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/ast/c2.html#228

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
.