The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion > Royal Ceremony and Protocol

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 04-03-2013, 06:23 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 View Post
Why did anyone marrying a Catholic have to give up their place in the line of succession? And, if a Catholic marries a Protestant, why must any children be raised Catholic?
Are you talking specifically about Britain or do you mean in general?

In general, if religion comes into play in succession then it's because of a connection between the monarchy and the official state religion. If there is an official state religion then it reasons that it is at least expected, if not outright law, that the monarch belong to said religion. In different nations the religion at play is different and the history of the religion and the state's relationship is also different.

In Britain, basically what happened was that during the reign of Henry VIII there was a separation between the Roman Catholic Church and the English, whom gradually established a Church of England with the monarch as it's head. Henry's first successor, his son Edward VI, was deeply Protestant and prosecuted Catholics, the next successor, Henry's daughter Mary I, was deeply Catholic and prosecuted Protestants even more so. The next, Elizabeth I, found some middle ground and during her reign we really see the foundations of the modern, "reformed Catholic" church that is the Anglican Church.

The spread of Protestantism continued under the reign of James VI and I, his successor Charles I, and the Commonwealth under the Cromwells. Unfortunately, Charles I married a Catholic and his children, notably sons Charles II and James II, grew up with heavy Catholic influences. Charles was believed to be a secret Catholic, and openly made a conversion on his death bed, and James II was openly a Catholic - something which barred him from holding office while he was the heir presumptive. James' Catholic beliefs eventually lead to a rising, as the people and the government didn't support him or his Catholic son being on the throne - they were disposed in favour of James' more acceptable Protestant daughter and son-in-law, Mary II and William III. Eventually, in order to avoid another situation like what had risen up here the succession law was passed, barring individuals who were Catholic or had married Catholics from inheriting the throne. The current line of succession, however, shows that there are still some loopholes in the wording of the law.

As to why a Catholic who married a Protestant would raise their child Catholic, it's a teaching in many religions, including Catholicism, that children of a parent of that religion be raised in it, even if the parents' marriage is a mixed faith. Some churches are stricter on this than others, with some outright being against interfaith marriages, others merely wanting the children raised in their religion, and some merely wanting the children raised with God.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-03-2013, 07:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
- Members of the Swedish line of succession must be Protestant Christian of pure evangel faith
The members of the Swedish line of succession have to be a member of the Church of Sweden, no other protestant faith is accepted, unless that faith acknowledges and follows the decisions made by the Swedish Church in Uppsala in 1593.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daphoenyx View Post
I have a question about "royal marriage" and atheism.

What would happen if some royal married an atheist? Let's say ... Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine of Sweden.

Would they still have to marry in church? What if the atheist "new addiction" didn't want to? Would they do a "mixed" ritual in church? If they did only a civil ceremony, would the Prince(ss) have to renounce titles and/or succession to the throne?
There is no need for the spouse of a Swedish royal in line for the throne to have any faith, or be of any specific faith.

As long as one partner is a member of the Church of Sweden a priest can't deny the couple the right to get married in a church. As there are no legal differences in Sweden between a church wedding and a civil wedding, there are no need for a royal to renounce their titles or succession rights if they would prefer a civil ceremony. An example of a Swedish royal marrying in a civil ceremony is princess Birgitta in 1961, the civil wedding ceremony in Stockholm made her marriage legal in Sweden.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-03-2013, 08:10 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish
As to why a Catholic who married a Protestant would raise their child Catholic, it's a teaching in many religions, including Catholicism, that children of a parent of that religion be raised in it, even if the parents' marriage is a mixed faith. Some churches are stricter on this than others, with some outright being against interfaith marriages, others merely wanting the children raised in their religion, and some merely wanting the children raised with God.
My parents believe in the latter (being raised with God). My mom was baptized in the Catholic Church but doesn't practice it now, and my dad was raised United and wasn't baptized. They got married in the Catholic Church, and have been for almost 37 years now. They say as long as we believe in a higher power, we are free to practice any religion we want.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-03-2013, 08:49 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 View Post
My parents believe in the latter (being raised with God). My mom was baptized in the Catholic Church but doesn't practice it now, and my dad was raised United and wasn't baptized. They got married in the Catholic Church, and have been for almost 37 years now. They say as long as we believe in a higher power, we are free to practice any religion we want.
My father is Catholic and my mother is Jewish. When they married, they decided that none of them would convert.

I was christened and circumcised. We celebrate both Christian and Jewish holidays. I decided to have a Bar Mitzvah, and my sister had a Bat Mitzvah.

If the Royals know how to cope with the situation, I see no problem in interfaith marriages.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-03-2013, 08:59 PM
HRHHermione's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 2,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 View Post
Why did anyone marrying a Catholic have to give up their place in the line of succession? And, if a Catholic marries a Protestant, why must any children be raised Catholic?
The answer to your first question is "Because of the terms of the act of settlement." Act of Settlement 1701 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The answer to the second is because the Catholic church requires faithful Catholics to raise their children as Catholics as well, most of the time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-03-2013, 09:41 PM
Daphoenyx's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Rosario, Argentina
Posts: 148
Wow that's a lot of information you put out there, thanks to all of you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Meraude View Post
There is no need for the spouse of a Swedish royal in line for the throne to have any faith, or be of any specific faith.

As long as one partner is a member of the Church of Sweden a priest can't deny the couple the right to get married in a church. As there are no legal differences in Sweden between a church wedding and a civil wedding, there are no need for a royal to renounce their titles or succession rights if they would prefer a civil ceremony. An example of a Swedish royal marrying in a civil ceremony is princess Birgitta in 1961, the civil wedding ceremony in Stockholm made her marriage legal in Sweden.
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know!
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-03-2013, 09:43 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,334
A lot of this stuff is more formality than anything else.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:22 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I would hope that any aetheist marrying someone of faith would respect their proposed partners beleifs as well as the person of faith respecting the non-faith of their partner and that both civil and religious ceremonies would be possible.

In fact if the atheist didn't want to marry in a religious ceremony then they wouldn't be worth marrying someone of faith as clearly they don't respect the other person's beliefs - just as if a person of faith wants to marry an aethiest they should have the civil ceremony as a sign of support and respect for their partner.
I only just happened upon this interesting thread.

The problem I see with an atheist marrying a member of the Royal Family, or any other practising Anglican who wants a traditional religious wedding ceremony, is that the atheist party cannot just stand there mute and not actively participate. An atheist can attend other people's weddings and other church services without compromising their own beliefs or insulting those of others, because you can just sit and stand there quietly.

But the main characters in a wedding ceremony have to actively participate and say prayers and exchange vows "before God". The words of the Anglican wedding ceremony can readily be found through an internet search engine and it's clear that it involves two people entering into a religious covenant. If you don't believe in God I think it would be very hypocritical to say the words required by the ceremony, and I can understand believers being offended by such behaviour. This issue of hypocrisy was the reason I refused to have a church wedding.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:23 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Hamilton, Canada
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

My father is Catholic and my mother is Jewish. When they married, they decided that none of them would convert.

I was christened and circumcised. We celebrate both Christian and Jewish holidays. I decided to have a Bar Mitzvah, and my sister had a Bat Mitzvah.

If the Royals know how to cope with the situation, I see no problem in interfaith marriages.
My piano teacher is Jewish of Russian origin, and her daughter married a Chinese man. They have two boys, 18 and 6. They celebrate both Christian and Jewish holidays, and their youngest son speaks English, Russian and Mandarin fluently.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-04-2013, 12:54 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I only just happened upon this interesting thread.

The problem I see with an atheist marrying a member of the Royal Family, or any other practising Anglican who wants a traditional religious wedding ceremony, is that the atheist party cannot just stand there mute and not actively participate. An atheist can attend other people's weddings and other church services without compromising their own beliefs or insulting those of others, because you can just sit and stand there quietly.

But the main characters in a wedding ceremony have to actively participate and say prayers and exchange vows "before God". The words of the Anglican wedding ceremony can readily be found through an internet search engine and it's clear that it involves two people entering into a religious covenant. If you don't believe in God I think it would be very hypocritical to say the words required by the ceremony, and I can understand believers being offended by such behaviour. This issue of hypocrisy was the reason I refused to have a church wedding.
That is true but there is also the issue of not having a religious service to a person of faith who wouldn't regard themselves as married without the full religious service. I have no problem with a person who didn't believe in God saying the vows in a church before God because they are, to them, only words while to the person of faith they have meaning.

As an Anglican I have no issue with an aetheist marrying in church as I see that as an example of supporting their partner of faith - just as I would expect the person of faith to undertake a civil service.

Maybe it is my upbringing with both RC and CoE ancestry with great-grandparents who refused to regard themsevles as married until both services had undertaken and then in the next generation an aethiest marrying in a church as a sign of love for his new partner of faith.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-04-2013, 01:31 AM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,625
It hadn't occurred to me that an Anglican might not consider themselves married if they hadn't undergone a church wedding.

I am sure our family experiences have a lot of bearing on our views on such matters. I am from a family of nominal Anglicans on both sides. An uncle married a Catholic woman, in an Anglican ceremony, and on condition she agreed to the children being raised Anglican. To her credit she kept her word even after he died when the children were very young. I suppose she was only a nominal Catholic, too.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-04-2013, 01:49 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,087
I think the whole argument of whether or not an atheist can marry in a church service goes back to the individual atheist themselves and the person performing the ceremony.

A good friend of mine had a reverend perform her wedding. She's not particularly religious - agnostic at best - and her husband is an atheist. Her mother, however, was religious and it meant a lot to her that she have a religious ceremony so they searched for a Christian minister to perform the ceremony. They were upfront with him about their own religious beliefs and the reasoning for a religious ceremony, and as he had no problem with it he performed the ceremony.

For some ministers/priests this won't be acceptable, but for others it is (particularly if the service isn't happening within an actual church). I personally don't see a problem with it so long as all parties are up front about their beliefs before hand and the person performing the ceremony doesn't take issue with them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-04-2013, 01:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Most, if not all, the Anglicans, indeed Christians I know wouldn't regard themselves as married unless it was a religious ceremony.

My great-grandparents actually went so far as to have two full weddings on consecutive days - with two wedding dresses - and then there were two baptisms for each of the kids. When my great-grandfather died my ggmother continued to raise their children the way they had agreed - both - and let all the kids decide when they were 15 or older so to church on Sunday they went - first to mass and then to the CoE although she wouldn't set foot in the CofE church with the kids.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-19-2014, 01:20 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
In some countries the royal couple wanting to be married has to get approval by the parliament or government before they can officially get married. If the royal getting married is not likely to succeed the heir to the throne (the person is 7 or 8th in line for example), why do they really need the approval of the parliament. If the King and Queen approve of the match, it's highly unlikely that the parliament would disapprove unless they knew something the King and Queen didn't. It seems like this is more of a formalty. I know that this is taken very very seriously.
In the Netherlands, consent to royal marriages must be given by the States-General (the Dutch parliament) in the form of a law passed by both houses of parliament in a joint session. The monarch's consent technically is not required, although I'd expect the monarch to be consulted.

In Sweden, on the other hand, it is the government (not the parliament) that must consent to the marriage, but consent can only be sought upon request by the monarch, meaning that, in practice, the monarch must approve the marriage first before the matter is referred to the government.

One might think that, in this day and age, royals should be allowed to marry whoever they want, but it is important to keep in mind that a royal marriage is not simply a private matter, but also a state affair as children from those marriages may potentially one day become kings/queens (i.e the head of state). It is reasonable then that royal marriages should be vetted by the government or parliament. The vetting, however, should apply IMHO only to the those individuals who have a reasonable probability of ever ascending the throne, let's say, the first six persons in the line of succession as proposed in the UK's Succession to the Crown Act 2013. There is no need to bother about marriages of people who are way down in the line and who might not even undertake official royal duties.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-19-2014, 01:53 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,088
Thanks, Mbruno.

I would imagine it is in many ways in the Netherlands as it is here in Denmark. The Parliament formally has to give it's consent to a royal marriage here as well.
A royal engagement is formally presented at a State Council, whereupon the government publicly congratulate the happy couple.
- Because the matter would not have been presented to the State Council if the government/Parliament objected to the marriage. That's already been taken care of beforehand.

If the royal marries without concent he/she would in all likelhood be stripped of the royal status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
I only just happened upon this interesting thread.

The problem I see with an atheist marrying a member of the Royal Family, or any other practising Anglican who wants a traditional religious wedding ceremony, is that the atheist party cannot just stand there mute and not actively participate. An atheist can attend other people's weddings and other church services without compromising their own beliefs or insulting those of others, because you can just sit and stand there quietly.

But the main characters in a wedding ceremony have to actively participate and say prayers and exchange vows "before God". The words of the Anglican wedding ceremony can readily be found through an internet search engine and it's clear that it involves two people entering into a religious covenant. If you don't believe in God I think it would be very hypocritical to say the words required by the ceremony, and I can understand believers being offended by such behaviour. This issue of hypocrisy was the reason I refused to have a church wedding.
As an atheist, I'll say a religious wedding ceremony wouldn't conflict with my conviction.
It's never been a secret that I am an atheist and as long as people realise and understand that I respect and understand their religious belief and wishes in return.

I was married at a civil ceremony. However had my wife wished a religious ceremony it would have been no problems at all to me.
A church wedding would merely have been another form of wedding ceremony to me, just in a different setting and with various traditions and a religious twist. The main thing is that it would be a legally binding ceremony so we end up being married.
The same thing about christenings. I'm a godfather of two children. The parents knew I am an atheist and still wished me to be a godfather at a Lutheran and a Catholic baptism. No problem, I just looked away from the religious aspect and interpreted my role to be that of an adult rolemodel (which I am anyway), so that doesn't conflict with my convictions either.

There are atheists who flatly refuse to take part in any religious ceremony at all and I personally find that childish and silly. (To some atheists it's almost a crusade!) If I respect people's religion, people tend to respect my convictions as well.
It's only when people want to impose their religious belief on me that I dig my heels in.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-19-2014, 02:18 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Lapalisse, France
Posts: 719
Also in the Netherlands the royal marriage needs to have the King's consent as it is he who offers the Bill of Consent to the States-General by means of a so-called Royal Message, set in pluralis maiestatis (We = the King) and signed by him:

Herewith We offer into Your consideration [name of the Bill].
The explanatory memorandum attached to it contains the grounds on which this Bill is founded.
And herewith We command You into the Lord's holy protection.

The Hague,

[date]

Willem-Alexander

This is the first sign by the King, even before it is offered to Parliament. When the King really, really wants to obstruct, this is the first of his ultimate chances. The very last ultimate chance is to refuse to sign an Act of Consent. Of course a Government will only offer such a Bill when the King agrees with it, to prevent major constitutional problems.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-19-2014, 05:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Also in the Netherlands the royal marriage needs to have the King's consent as it is he who offers the Bill of Consent to the States-General by means of a so-called Royal Message, set in pluralis maiestatis (We = the King) and signed by him:

Herewith We offer into Your consideration [name of the Bill].
The explanatory memorandum attached to it contains the grounds on which this Bill is founded.
And herewith We command You into the Lord's holy protection.

The Hague,

[date]

Willem-Alexander

This is the first sign by the King, even before it is offered to Parliament. When the King really, really wants to obstruct, this is the first of his ultimate chances. The very last ultimate chance is to refuse to sign an Act of Consent. Of course a Government will only offer such a Bill when the King agrees with it, to prevent major constitutional problems.

As I understand it, all government bills before parliament are technically either introduced by the King or introduced on His behalf, but that is mostly a formality in a constitutional monarchy. The actual decison on whether to introduce a bill or not lies with the ministers, who bear political responsibility for the proposed legislation, and the King is bound to abide by their advice. I couldn't imagine a situation where a modern-day Dutch monarch would try to play an active role in controlling the legislative agenda of the government.

In any case, browsing Chapter 2 of the Dutch constitution, Arts 29 and 30 say that bills excluding someone from the line of succession if "exceptional circumstances arise" or "appointing a successor to the throne if it appears that there will be no successor" must necessarily be presented "by or on behalf of the King", but apparently that requirement does not apply to Art. 28, which says only that the two chambers shall meet in joint session to consider a bill to grant permission to royal marriages. Considering then that no inconsistency with Chapter 2 exists, my understanding (I may be wrong!) is that Art 82 (2) and (3) apply and, even if the King, in a very improbable scenario, refused to introduce the consent bill, one or more MPs could still introduce it in a joint session as a private member bill and not a government bill.

Of course you are right though when you say that, as a last resort, the King would still have the prerogative of refusing to ratify the bill once it has been passed, but, again, I don't think that is a likely scenario in a constitutional monarchy.

Just as a comparison, in Sweden, unlike in the Netherlands, the Instrument of Government removes the King completely from the legislative process in the sense that the monarch plays no role whatsoever in either introducing legislation or ratifying it (i.e, he is essentially powerless). Nevertheless, the Act of Succession by constrast explicitlly gives the King a role in vetting royal marriages as the government is legally forbidden from consenting to such marriages unless the King requests them to do so, which I find somewhat odd.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-19-2014, 08:00 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,334
I didn't understand why Prince Michael had to give up his succession rights to marry a catholic. He was not likely to inherit not his children so I felt it was quite unfair. Prince Friso was another matter.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-19-2014, 08:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,466
The monarchies are not in control, their Parliaments, Storting or whatever their "real" governing bodies are. Prince Friso made the right decision, rather than fight, as he had a great wife and would never have been in line for the throne, anyway, by proximity. It made no difference, except for useless words. Prince Michael, was controlled by the Act of Settlement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-19-2014, 08:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
I didn't understand why Prince Michael had to give up his succession rights to marry a catholic. He was not likely to inherit not his children so I felt it was quite unfair. Prince Friso was another matter.
It's the Act of Settlement which covers the requirements for people in line of throne. It isn't a big deal for Prince Michael. Autumn Philips was Catholic but converted before she married Peter. It isn't a big deal unless it is the direct heir. For example if Kate was hardcore Catholic, William would have to choose between her and the throne.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Marrying a Title Alastair_r Royal Chit Chat 8 03-13-2008 04:37 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events diana engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:09 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]