Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly to marry 17 May 2008

[Lemon Lyman]

Originally Posted by Lady Bluffton

Based on the Telegraph article, if it is to be believed, it seems to me that regardless of the form of the wedding service, a Catholic priest will be present as a witness. Under canon law, I believe it will make the marriage valid in the eyes of the Roman Catholic church.

Seeing as Prince Michael was married to his wife in a civil and not religious ceremony, as far as I know, won't this be the first time a member of the extended British royal family married according to Catholic rites (except of course, Nicholas Windsor, who is Catholic) at a wedding the Queen will attend?

I suspect the Catholic priest may do a reading/or lead some prayers or just be there to witness the marriage. The wedding service will be anglican as in a C of E church.

Of course the Queen can attend catholic services.

[angela]

Prince Michael did marry in a religous service in 1983 but this will be the first time the Queen has attended such a wedding. I think also that we should move away from the word "renounce" as no formal renunciation will take place on Peter's part, when he marries Autumn he will lose his place in the succession automatically. This is why I've never understood why the Duke of Kent remains in the line of seccession as any Royal with a Catholic spouse cannot inherit the Throne. It's been said that it's because the Duchess converted after their marraige but what difference does that make as he could never become King with her as his wife anyway?

[Royal Fan]

Angela exlain about the 1983 Religous Wedding of Prince and Princess Michael why did they wait so long?

[blondie28]

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent married in 1978 in a civil ceremony. The closest family member to the Queen that attended was Princess Anne. There really aren't any Kents left in the line of succesion, as they are all catholic. The only ones are Princess Alexandra and her family.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by blondie28

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent married in 1978 in a civil ceremony. The closest family member to the Queen that attended was Princess Anne. There really aren't any Kents left in the line of succesion, as they are all catholic. The only ones are Princess Alexandra and her family.

There was an anglicanic religious WEdding in October 1978. aND A catrholic ceremony in 1983. This was because Marie-Christine was divorced. Their children are however in line of succession as they are raised anglicanic. Also the children of Lady Helen Taylor are still in line of succession.

[angela]

The Michaels of Kent married in a Catholic Church in 1983 as this was when the Princess' first marraige was annulled by the Pope so she was able to marry in Church again. Their marraige was not recognised by the Catholic Church until then as it (like the Anglican Church) dosn't recognise civil marraiges, although the Anglican Church will still bless such unions as they did for Charles and Camilla.

[Lady Bluffton]

Originally Posted by angela

The Michaels of Kent married in a Catholic Church in 1983 as this was when the Princess' first marraige was annulled by the Pope so she was able to marry in Church again.

Thanks, Angela; didn't know that about the Kents...did the Queen attend that religious ceremony?

[daisygoogles]

Originally Posted by angela

The Michaels of Kent married in a Catholic Church in 1983 as this was when the Princess' first marraige was annulled by the Pope so she was able to marry in Church again. Their marraige was not recognised by the Catholic Church until then as it (like the Anglican Church) dosn't recognise civil marraiges, although the Anglican Church will still bless such unions as they did for Charles and Camilla.

Can anyone explain what the "blessing" of a civil ceremony does for a marriage if the CoE doesn't recognize a civil marriage in the first place???
Thanks in advance

[angela]

I don't really understand why the COE do blessings for the second marraiges of divorced people. They won't marry them again in Church as they say they are still bound by the religious promises they made the first time around so how can they bless something which isn't "legitimate" in their eyes. No wonder the COE is losing so many members when it can't seem to make up it's mind about what it stands for on so many issues. I mean, you simply can't please all of the people all of the time but it seems to be trying to do so and looking ridiculous in the process. Charles is the next head of the Church and yet the COE wouldn't marry him and Camilla because her first husband still lives and they don't recognise divorce so how they could bless the Wales/Cornwall union is anyone's guess.

[Camsterlaird]

Originally Posted by blondie28

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent married in 1978 in a civil ceremony. The closest family member to the Queen that attended was Princess Anne. There really aren't any Kents left in the line of succesion, as they are all catholic. The only ones are Princess Alexandra and her family.

The Kents in Line to the Succession are the Duke of Kent, Lady Helen Taylor and her children, Princess Alexandra and her family, and Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor (children of Prince & Princess Michael).

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by daisygoogles

Can anyone explain what the "blessing" of a civil ceremony does for a marriage if the CoE doesn't recognize a civil marriage in the first place???
Thanks in advance

I guess you could call it laicism - that means that in a state there is a recognized seperation between the state and the churches, which the churches represented in that state respect and accept. Even though the CoE/CoS is the most important church in Britain, it recognizes that there are laws of the state that are different from those of the church but are valid. A very good example is civil marriages - even though some are not okay according to the Chruch's laws, they are still accepted as valid under the laws of the state and thus these unions may be blessed, if a priest wished the couple well and wants to ask the Lord's blessing on them.

Charles and Camilla were legally married according to British law and the Church gave its blessing, even though their union is not valid according to the church's law. But who said the Head of one institution has to obey all the rules? There are some for priests as well that are not binding for the Head as he/she is considered a layman, so what?

I'm not even sure the CoE recognized Camilla's first marriage as she married a Catholic in a Catholic ceremony.

[principessa]

Are there any news about the exact date, the wedding place and a possible convertation of Autumn Kelly to the Anglican Church of England?

[zembla]

^^It doesn't sound like she is converting from all the reports...and it makes sense since Peter isn't really a senior royal in any way. Also it looks like May for the wedding...details in full will probably leak a couple weeks in advance...

[branchg]

He doesn't need to "renounce". The law does it for him the moment he marries a Catholic under the Act of Settlement.

[christinacg]

I still don't understand why the Queen doesn't dissolve that silly Catholic Act. I'd bet that if it was William or Harry that wanted to marry a Catholic she would. I guess with Peter there's such a slim chance he'd ever be king that renouncing his succession doesn't matter much but there's really no need for the Act now-a-days.

[scooter]

Originally Posted by angela

I don't really understand why the COE do blessings for the second marraiges of divorced people. They won't marry them again in Church as they say they are still bound by the religious promises they made the first time around so how can they bless something which isn't "legitimate" in their eyes. No wonder the COE is losing so many members when it can't seem to make up it's mind about what it stands for on so many issues. I mean, you simply can't please all of the people all of the time but it seems to be trying to do so and looking ridiculous in the process. Charles is the next head of the Church and yet the COE wouldn't marry him and Camilla because her first husband still lives and they don't recognise divorce so how they could bless the Wales/Cornwall union is anyone's guess.

I totally agree, Angela. It could get a bit dicey around coronation time, with him having to swear to uphold and defend the Church of England. Theres a whole other thread on that subject and does Camilla get crowned, etc.

[angela]

I know we really should be talking about Autumn and Peter in this thread but in reply to a previous post I just want to point out that Camilla didn't marry Andrew in a Catholic ceremony. They married in the Guards Chapel which is an Anglican Church. It's also where Diana's memorial service was held.

[zembla]

Originally Posted by christinacg

I still don't understand why the Queen doesn't dissolve that silly Catholic Act. I'd bet that if it was William or Harry that wanted to marry a Catholic she would. I guess with Peter there's such a slim chance he'd ever be king that renouncing his succession doesn't matter much but there's really no need for the Act now-a-days.

I agree...it's offensive and stupid to have an act like that. They need to get with the times and stop discriminating...

[christinacg]

I heard William will be Peter's best man, but will Harry be in the wedding party too, as a groomsman?
I really can't wait for this wedding. I think Autumn will be a gorgeous bride, and a breath of fresh air for this family!

[jcbcode99]

It must be exciting for the Queen, seeing a grandchild get married! I bet it will be a beautiful ceremony