Succession to the Crown Bill — New Clause 1 — Remove Requement for Monarch to be Member of the Church of England — 28 Jan 2013 at 18:45
Kelvin Hopkins MP, Luton North voted to make it possible for someone not joining in communion with the Church of England to succeed to the Crown.
The majority of MPs voted against making it possible for someone not joining in communion with the Church of England to succeed to the Crown.
The proposed new clause rejected in this vote was:
- (1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of that person not joining in communion with the Church of England as by law established; and all provisions to the contrary in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement are accordingly superseded.
- (2) Where a person who succeeds to the Crown or possesses it declares to the Privy Council that he or she is not in communion with the Church of England as by law established, the person who is next in line of succession to the Crown and who is in communion with the Church of England shall perform the functions of Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the name of and on behalf of the Sovereign.
- (3) The provisions in subsections (3) to (5) of section 3 of the Regency Act 1937 apply to such a person who is Supreme Governor, with the substitution for references to the Regent of references to the Supreme Governor.’.—
-  Parliament's webpage on the Succession to the Crown Bill
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (No)||Minority (Aye)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||174 (+1 tell)||15 (+2 tell)||1||63.3%|
|LDem||39 (+1 tell)||2||1||75.4%|