The Queen's churchgoing habits

[Mark O]

Hi, I know it's long a tradition for the Queen and other members of the Royal Family to attend Church at Sandringham over Christmas, but my question is 'does the Queen attend Church every Sunday (where practical)'?.........if many Weekends are spent at Windsor would the Queen visit St. George's Chapel for the Sunday morning service?

[BeatrixFan]

HM does indeed go to Church every Sunday. She spends every weekend at Windsor and so every Sunday, it's down to St George's Chapel for the service. The Dean is allowed to speak about what he likes but the Duke of Edinburgh has set a limit on the time his sermon can last as he apparantly can abide long clergy talks. A few years ago I believe a Roman Catholic priest led the service.

[Royal Fan]

What about the Chapel inside Windsor Castle

[Polly]

That's St George's Chapel, Royal Fan.

So far as I'm aware, HM attends service every Sunday, no matter where she is. In Australia, she's often worshipped at churches and chapels of different Christian denominations, good ecumenical Queen that she is.

She doesn't attend service through duty or habit, either: worship is an integral part of her life and her personal beliefs.

[Skydragon]

She normally attends Crathie Parish Church, also know as Crathie Kirk, when at Balmoral.

HM was Christened on 29th May 1926, in the private chapel at Buckingham Palace by the then Archbishop of York.

She was Confirmed on 28 March 1942 in the Private Chapel at Windsor Castle by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[HRH Kimetha]

Originally Posted by Polly

That's St George's Chapel, Royal Fan.

So far as I'm aware, HM attends service every Sunday, no matter where she is. In Australia, she's often worshipped at churches and chapels of different Christian denominations, good ecumenical Queen that she is.

She doesn't attend service through duty or habit, either: worship is an integral part of her life and her personal beliefs.

What about the younger royals? Do they go for their personal beliefs, or just out of duty?

[Elspeth]

I don't think many of them have spoken about their beliefs, so it's hard to tell. From what he's said about religion and spirituality, I assume Prince Charles attends church because of personal beliefs as well as duty; as to the others, I'm not sure anyone really knows.

[Royal Fan]

What do you think the Queen would want in Reguards to Roman Catholics in the Sucession also Wonder what belives about being "In the Spirit" and Speaking in Tounges (This is not to offend anyone Just asking about things in Reguards to this Subject)

[Duchess]

any member of the royal family that wants to marry a roman catholic must renounce their right to succession, all this going back to henry viii at the time he broke away the R.C. Church and formed the CoE. as for speaking in tongues (for those that are unfamiliar with it, is a religious practice and is an unintelligible vocalization symbolizing communication with the holy spirit, and in some cases, a sign of rebirth) i'm not sure that this would be important to HM but she's not said anything on the practice so we don't know for sure. as for "in the spirit" i'm not sure what you mean. maybe you could tell us?

[BeatrixFan]

On the ban, these days if a person was high up enough for it to matter, I have a feeling the Catholic ban could be dropped.

[Kevin_of_Sussex]

Originally Posted by Royal Fan

In the Sprit ie Slain in the Spirit

I having an intimate knowledge of various Christian denomination, the Queen appears to be a moderate Church of England person, and show her religious devotion by going to public church.

As the royal family's relations to Roman Catholicism may have been discussed widely elsewhere, I cannot add to that.

As for pentecostal phenomena, "speaking in tongues", receiving "Toronto Blessings", we can safely say that the Queen have not made an opinion on such phenomena, nor has she displayed such. This and her choice of denomination (Church of England) out of duty to her Nation, leads me to believe that she is very likely not to be pentecostal.

[GillW]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

On the ban, these days if a person was high up enough for it to matter, I have a feeling the Catholic ban could be dropped.

I can't see that something which is applied further down the line of succession would "be dropped" for those nearer to the throne! - More likely the reverse would apply, so that those whose claim is remote & unlikely could be allowed to marry those of the Catholic faith, but that the rules would still be applied to those who may just accede to become monarch.

It has been applied only recently to Lord Nicholas Windsor, who himself converted to Catholicism in 2001 and by doing so automatically lost his rights of succession to the throne because of the notorious 1701 Act of Settlement that bars Catholics from becoming monarch. But even if he had not, his marriage to a British born Croatian noble, Donna Paolo Doimi de Frankopan in November 2006, would have excluded him.

Similarly, his brother, the Earl of St Andrews, married a Catholic in January 1988 and he too forfeited his place in line.

[BeatrixFan]

Well yes but can you imagine the outcry if William was denied the right to marry his love because she was Catholic? Discrimination is cried at the best of times, all it'd need would be a march outside Buck House and I'm sure the government would whip it through.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by GillW

I can't see that something which is applied further down the line of succession would "be dropped" for those nearer to the throne!

That's actually the only way I can see it being dropped. As of right now, nothing has been "applied" to anyone, so nobody has been "wronged" by it. Legally, there is no such thing as the line of succession. There's a monarch, and when the monarch dies, there's another. The line of succession is just a convenient tool to use to see what happens if, say, 82 people die at once. Until that happens, nothing has been done to them for their catholicism.

If, say, William would want to marry a Catholic girl, MP's would be tripping over each other running to the House of Commons so they could appear to care about ending the discrimination.

Originally Posted by GillW

More likely the reverse would apply, so that those whose claim is remote & unlikely could be allowed to marry those of the Catholic faith, but that the rules would still be applied to those who may just accede to become monarch.

There's no way to do that. They're already allowed to marry catholics, they're just excluded from the office of monarch should the time come. The only time the Act could be used is if a Catholic is the heir, and the monarch dies. Then the throne would pass over them on the way to the next.

[Polly]

The continuing prohibition of Catholics ascending the throne has its basis in the 1689 Bill of Rights:

"An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown." (first line of the Act).

Predominantly, it imposed strict limits on the use of the Royal Prerogative by the sovereign, gave full legislative power to Parliament, and barred Roman Catholics from the Throne.

The Act of Settlement, 1701, was passed, basically, to ensure a stable executive for the legislative branch of government, ie. Parliament.

* It prohibited the accession of Catholics, the illegitimate and adopted children

* The sovereign must be in communion with the Church of England and swear to uphold the Protestant succession

* It established the descendants of Sophia of Hanover as the legal heirs to the throne, but only if Protestant

The only way that these laws can be overturned is through legislation passed in the national parliaments of the 17 countries (Statute of Westminster 1931) where the Queen is head of state. If Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, wish to remain Head of State of these countries, then they must all approve, legally, any and all change.

Incidentally, it's also why Camilla will be Queen Camilla, despite any other silly and meaningless title bestowed on her, when and if Charles becomes King, and why Britain hasn't abolished male-preference primogeniture: it all seems just too cumbersome and unwieldy. Many people throughout the world do not appreciate (how could they?) how complicated changing the laws in relation to the BRF and succession will be and I can't think of any other ruling house in this complex position.

If Britain were to act unilaterally, informed opinion in the UK is that it would split the Commonwealth and divide allegiance to the Crown as the law would not automatically apply in Her Majesty's other realms. I do not think it possible that any politician would relish being held responsible for the disintegration of the Commonwealth; indeed, it's been reported that Charles himself has expressed dismay that he may be remembered as the King who lost the dominions, if, as it's becoming clearer in Australia, it's his mother who is the only bulwark against republicanism.

Whereas as one would have hoped that times had changed from those frightened and bigoted days which saw Catholicism proscribed (after all Guy Fawkes has been dead for 400 years), I understand that legal moves were instigated in Canada, quite recently, to remove religious discrimination in the succession, but that it failed. Perhaps Canadians here can enlighten us?

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by Polly

I understand that legal moves were instigated in Canada, quite recently, to remove religious discrimination in the succession, but that it failed. Perhaps Canadians here can enlighten us?

There was a court case on it, some guy sued saying that the provisions violated the Constitution, but the court ruled that the succession laws were considered a part of the Constitution too, so it couldn't overrule itself.

[Duchess]

i don't remember this case at all....when did it take place? and i can't for the life of me imagine why someone would even bother with it unless he has something to gain?

[wbenson]

O'Donohue v. Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think it was a very big case.