Autumn Kelly Converts: Peter Phillips Keeps Place in Succession May 2008

[Marino01]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

Having read some of the comments on the Daily Mail website i have to ask - what is everyone on there complaining about? Yes the law is wrong in this respect, and i think were it easier to change it defienetly would be.

From what we've seen and know i can;t imagine that Autumn was under any pressure form anyone in the royal family to convert, therfore i think i was entirely her own descision, in which case no-one can argue against it.
I mean can you imagine that Peter, Zara pr Princess Ann arebothered whether Peter is in the line of succession or not? Zara and Peter have always been brought up to be 'normal' and i really can not imagine them being bothered by this.

I think Autumn simply thought it was a good thing to do, maybe as a present to her future husband - the right to stay in the line of succesion, beats anyhting else you find on normal wedding lists.

I agree with Tommy on this. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Avicenna]

Ruth 1:16-17 (New International Version)


16 But Ruth replied, "Don't urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the LORD deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

[Elise27]

It's a silly law that is discriminatory and has no place in modern society and is insulting to those subjects of her majesty who are catholic-which are a lot.
To me it is completely unbelievable that such a law would still be in place. I dont think that Autumn was religious otherwise she wouldnt have changed her religion, but the very fact that she should feel the need to, whether she had to do it or not, is absurd.

[Kotroman]

The same (or similar, mutatis mutandis) rule exists in almost every other ruling family in world:

1. Princess Marie of Denmark had to convert before marrying Prince Joachim of Denmark. She was not forced to by law and Joachim wouldn't have lost his postion if the line of succession, but she was forced to convert by custom and tradition.
2. Queen Noor of Jordan converted to Islam, although she was not forced to by law - she could've been queen anyway, although her children would not be in the line of succession.
3. The Duke of Edinburgh was not forced to convert by law, but he has still converted.
4. Queen Sophia of Spain had to convert too (remember, her husband's accession was a small possibility back then), though I am not sure whether she was forced to by law.

The exception, of course, is the Royal Family of the Netherlands. If other countries have these unwritten rules, I don't see anything wrong with the British having it written down. Even if the law is changed, I doubt that any British prince would marry a Catholic, just like I doubt that any Spanish infante would marry a Protestant.

[Duchess Ravenna]

These religious requirements seem to me to be utterly outdated and inappropriate to the multifaith nations of today.

[Kotroman]

Originally Posted by Duchess Ravenna

These religious requirements seem to me to be utterly outdated and inappropriate to the multifaith nations of today.

I agree to some point. However, you have to agree that an Eastern Orthodox couldn't be Head of the Church of England/Denmark/Norway. It's also unimaginable that a descendant of the Sun goddess (i.e. The Emperor of Japan; legendary) follows any religion other than Shinto.

Anyway, when most members of the royal family follow the state religion, the monarchy is safer.

[MARG]

I understand the need to change their denomination where the spouse will become head of the state Church however, I do not believe that it was any big deal to make that choice. Presbyterian to Lutheran, Greek Orthodox to Church of England etc. They are all just that, denominations.

Where someone changes from Roman Catholic to Church of England it is a big deal. Even if we've been born RC or Protestant and never seen the inside of a church since our respective Baptisms, it suddenly raises it's ugly head and we have to make a choice. I believe Autumn fell into this category.

Personally I am not a little amused at the similarity of the order of service and liturgy between our local RC and Anglican Churches.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by MARG

I understand the need to change their denomination where the spouse will become head of the state Church however, I do not believe that it was any big deal to make that choice. Presbyterian to Lutheran, Greek Orthodox to Church of England etc. They are all just that, denominations.

Where someone changes from Roman Catholic to Church of England it is a big deal. Even if we've been born RC or Protestant and never seen the inside of a church since our respective Baptisms, it suddenly raises it's ugly head and we have to make a choice. I believe Autumn fell into this category.

Personally I am not a little amused at the similarity of the order of service and liturgy between our local RC and Anglican Churches.

The reason for any similiarities rests with Elizabeth I and her compromise over religion.

The ligurgy isn't a problem but more central beliefs at the core of the teachings - Papal Infallibility and Transsubstantation are too different for the two branches of Christianity to come together in the foreseeable future in my opinion.