The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 06-10-2011, 12:50 AM
IloveCP's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: -, United States
Posts: 10,162
I wonder what the british people thought of this.Of course there are a lot of catholics in Britian and Im sure there offended by the no catholics allowed policy.They really should change the law,but I know it's not easy.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 06-10-2011, 10:07 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,502
It's not just "not easy" - it would be near impossible.

The Crown has two facets: Anglicanism and the State.

To try to disentangle them would mean re-writing the constitution.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 06-10-2011, 12:46 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Well if Charlene's converted, that would mean you would have to be Catholic to marry, wouldn't it?
Sometime earlier this year, the Archbishop explained that Charlene did NOT have to convert to wed Albert. I can't remember what he said about how the children would be raised.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 06-10-2011, 02:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,502
Albert's children would be raised Catholic. Not a stipulation from Monsignor Barsi or the Pope, but Monaco's Constitution.

One could say it's the same situation with Britain and Monaco.
The constitution wins every time...
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 06-10-2011, 04:46 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,550
Monaco and Britain are different. In Monaco as long as the children are brought up Catholic the Prince's wife can be whatever religion she likes, the same as in Holland for example where Princess Maxima has remained a Catholic but the children have to be raised as Protestants. In Britain a member of the Royal Family cannot succeed to the throne with a Catholic spouse under any circumstances.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 02-26-2015, 07:08 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 6,730
Well, they divorced and both remarried, so I don't think they are very practising Catholics.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 02-26-2015, 09:05 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,921
Remember, Anglicans or Episcopalians here, are, really, Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. The same basic services and Liturgy.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 02-26-2015, 09:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,605
However, under the Act of Settlement, anyone married to a Roman Catholic automatically loses the place in the line of succession so there is a difference.


That will change, when the Succession to the Crown Act is finally passed into law.


The British monarch obviously can't be Roman Catholic and that makes perfect sense as well,
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 02-27-2015, 07:44 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 5,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
Well, they divorced and both remarried, so I don't think they are very practising Catholics.
? Depending on the local church that you attend, you can be divorced and a practicing Catholic. Most divorced/remarried Catholics that I know fall into the "you can attend church, pray, donate and participate in the social life of the Church. You may also take sacraments if you are not sexually active in your marriage." I live in the US Midwest and find this is very common.
There is also the more-rare Catholic who has been told by a priest to follow a "don't ask, don't tell policy" and to go ahead and take sacrament in a local church that does not know of the prior divorce.
Off topic, but I thought I'd share what I'd learned from my experience of the RC Church.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:14 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Why was the Royal Marriages Act not amended for Peter Phillips?

His wife Autumn had to convert from Catholicism so that he could remain in the line of succession.
I think the changes that now allow marriage to a Roman Catholic were proposed well after their wedding, and applied retrospectively?
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:20 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,366
I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:21 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.


LaRae


Both of Princess Anne's children are.
She converted for sure. It was widely reported back then.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:28 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 8,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.


LaRae
Peter is certainly in line of succession. As a legitimate protestant descendent of Sophia of Hannover (the only requirements) he was born in line of succession. And by marrying a protestant (required at the time of his marriage) and having the permission of his grandmother, he maintained it. Peter is currently 13th and his daughters 14th and 15th. There are something like 5000 heirs to the throne.

Quote:
His wife Autumn had to convert from Catholicism so that he could remain in the line of succession.
I think the changes that now allow marriage to a Roman Catholic were proposed well after their wedding, and applied retrospectively?
Because amending a succession law is not a simple thing, takes times and the agreement of the realms the queen rules under. Changing the laws to allow a grandson who was at the time of his marriage 11th in line to the throne, to marry a catholic would be a stretch.

If he had married her without her converting, he would have been reinstated in succession eventually. George, the Earl of St Andrews lost his place in succession when he married a catholic in 1988. He was returned to the line of succession with the passing of the new act and is now 35th.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:29 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosena6 View Post
Both of Princess Anne's children are.
She converted for sure. It was widely reported back then.
I know she converted...I said she didn't have to convert.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 03-16-2018, 09:30 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 9,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
Peter is certainly in line of succession. As a legitimate protestant descendent of Sophia of Hannover (the only requirements) he was born in line of succession. And by marrying a protestant (required at the time of his marriage) and having the permission of his grandmother, he maintained it. Peter is currently 13th and his daughters 14th and 15th. There are something like 5000 heirs to the throne.
I was thinking about the permission to marry issue...confused myself!

LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 03-16-2018, 10:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 3,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosena6 View Post
His wife Autumn had to convert from Catholicism so that he could remain in the line of succession.
I think the changes that now allow marriage to a Roman Catholic were proposed well after their wedding, and applied retrospectively?
The requirement not to marry a Catholic was not in the Royal Marriages Act, but actually in the Act of Settlement 1701. That section of the latter act was repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

If Autumn had not converted to Anglicanism at the time she married Peter, he would have been removed from the line of succession. However, he would have been reinstated, as Prince Michael of Kent was, in 2015, when the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 came into force, since the repeal of the prohibition of marriages to Catholics was retroactive.

As Countessmeout said, changing the succession law is actually quite complicated because it requires legislative action by other countries (though not all countries) where the Queen is also Head of State. In the case of the Succession to the Crown Act, the whole process took about 4 years to be completed, starting with the 2011 Perth Agreement. There is actually a very detailed timeline account in the Perth Agreement article on the English Wikipedia.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 03-16-2018, 11:37 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 8,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I was thinking about the permission to marry issue...confused myself!

LaRae
Back when Peter married, even he required permission to marry. The whole 'only the top six heirs needs permission' has only been in place since 2015. Prior to that, everyone needed it. That is why you see Peter, Zara, and even people much further from the throne like Marine Mowatt, having letters of permission from the queen. Heck Prince Ernst August of Hannover asked permission when he married Caroline (not sure where he falls any more but he isn't even in the top 100).
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 03-17-2018, 09:43 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 6,730
Autumn didn't have to convert, but maybe she wanted to?
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 03-17-2018, 09:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biri View Post
Autumn didn't have to convert, but maybe she wanted to?
I think you're probably right. When it happened someone pointed out that she probably just wanted to attend the same church as her husband and any future children and since Peter wasn't going to convert to Roman Catholicism, she made the move instead.

There was practically no chance Peter would ever succeed to the throne so the argument that she converted only to keep his place in the line of succession doesn't hold water.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 03-18-2018, 05:45 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.


LaRae
of course he is in the line of succession. He is the queen's grandson.. why would he not be in the line of sucession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I think you're probably right. When it happened someone pointed out that she probably just wanted to attend the same church as her husband and any future children and since Peter wasn't going to convert to Roman Catholicism, she made the move instead.

There was practically no chance Peter would ever succeed to the throne so the argument that she converted only to keep his place in the line of succession doesn't hold water.
or she may have felt that life and what happens.. is always uncertain.. and Peter had a chance of succeeding.. albeit a very remote one.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, autumn kelly, autumn phillips, catholicism, church of england, line of succession, peter phillips, religion


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly 17 May 2008, St George's Chapel, Windsor PrincessofEurope Royal Weddings 454 08-20-2016 06:52 PM
Daughter for Peter and Autumn: Savannah Phillips - December 30, 2010 rossop7 The Princess Royal and Family 318 06-27-2012 03:24 PM
Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly Engaged: July 30, 2007 suztav The Princess Royal and Family 315 05-17-2008 12:45 AM




Popular Tags
archduchess marie astrid baltic republics book camilla china chris o'neill crown princess victoria current events england family fashion general news gordon grand duke henri hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta margarita infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín juan carlos king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia meghan markle monaco monarchy news nobel prize piromallo porphyria portugal prince charles prince daniel prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire princess elisabeth princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess margaretha of luxembourg princess of asturias princess victoria public image queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima royal royal ancestry royal geneology royal wedding spanish jewels state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family tiara victoria wedding windsor ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:46 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises