Talk:Accession Council

Traditional

"The Proclamation is traditionally read out at several traditional locations in London, Edinburgh, Windsor, and York." Clumsy? Beck13 11:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.110.165 (talk)

Composition of the Privy Council

Does anybody know what is meant by 'several leading citizens'? It would be helpful to explain this if we can. Peeper 09:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Second proclamation text

Is this completely necessary? An example is given above, and we don't know that Prince Charles will be known as Charles III (see regnal name). It seems a bit speculative and slightly ghoulish, given that an example of a previously-delivered speech could be given (if one is really necessary). Comments? Peeper 09:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Highly misleading

"This proclamation, though traditional, has no legal force as the succession will have passed automatically to the new monarch under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701."

This is technically correct but highly misleading. The Council of Accession is what actually makes the monarch. If it obeys the law, it is legal, and if it does not, it has illegally made a monarch - but that person is still the monarch all the same. What is more, the illegal action may then be ratified retrospectively. If you disagree, then you are even more than a Jacobite; you necessarily believe that the true heir is the heir of Arabella Stuart.

So this should be reworked. P.M.Lawrence. 12:40, 17 June 2007 User:203.166.63.4

I don't think so. Modern theory is that the Act of Settlement 1701 makes the monarch, and that stems from the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Convention Parliament. Since that was a revolutionary assembly, anything which happened earlier is irrelevant. (In any case, Arbella Stuart does not seem to have had children.) --Rumping (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The law says who is the monarch. There is always a monarch, unless there is no one in existence who meets the criteria of the various succession statutes. The new monarch is monarch immediately upon the previous monarch's death. The whole "declaration" lark which is done by the Accession Council is just that - a declaration. It is not the deciding body - there is no deciding body! It is simply a matter of who the law states is the monarch. (Obviously "the law" isn't a corporeal entity and therefore needs a person, or a body of people, to speak for it - that's the function of the Council.) David (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Church of Scotland!?

User:M.R.Forrester changed the article to read that the monarch swears to uphold the Church of Scotland. I find that incredibly hard to believe, seeing how she is an Anglican and the head of the Church of England; moreover, the Church of Scotland is not an establishment church. I have changed it back to how it was before. 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Count Truthstein (talk • contribs)

Upon reading further in the article, it appears that Church of Scotland is correct. I will put a note in the article to clarify this. Count Truthstein (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Which is the oath given in the article?

The article is ambiguous as to whether the quoted oath is the one given in parliament or the one given to the Accession Council. I would expect it to be the former, as it makes no reference to the Church of Scotland. Count Truthstein (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)