The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 01-14-2011, 06:42 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Whether ANY system is better than any other is surely a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact.

several different systems have been used in the royal houses of europe. If any one was better than any other all monarchies would adopt it.

I guess what matters is whether any change would have the support of the public, the politicians, and perhaps finaly the royal family.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 01-15-2011, 01:22 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,601
Cool

Well said David. It's true what you have said, any changes would have to meet with the support and approval of all three parties, not just one or two, or one alone to be successful. The Catholic question would be a can of worms that I prefer not to think about. IF Catholics were allowed to the Monarch or Heir, there is the question of what religion are any children to be raised as? The Monarch is the Head of C of E, the Catholic Church prefers all children raised as Catholic. So do any males born remain Anglican and females Catholic. What if only females are born and the next Heir to the Throne is female? The family shuffling begins and it could be mass confusion.
I honestly don't see the British Monarchy changing the succession laws for a very long time and to be honest, it doesn't bother me.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 01-15-2011, 04:27 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
. The Catholic question would be a can of worms that I prefer not to think about. IF Catholics were allowed to the Monarch or Heir, there is the question of what religion are any children to be raised as? The Monarch is the Head of C of E, the Catholic Church prefers all children raised as Catholic. So do any males born remain Anglican and females Catholic. What if only females are born and the next Heir to the Throne is female? The family shuffling begins and it could be mass confusion.
I really dont see this as a major problem either. There are instances of catholic and protestant royals marrying. In some cases the children have been raised as catholics and in some cases protestant. Thats a matter for the individuals concerned.

What seems to be the issue is the relationship between the Anglican Church and the Crown.

Since Henry VIII broke with Rome the Monarch has been head of the Anglican Church but that doesnt HAVE to remain so.

I'm not sure but I am assuming that other royal protestant monarchs are not head of their respective Churches. ie Norway, Danemark, Holland, Sweden. and I'm sure that was the case for former monarchies such as the previous german Kingdoms ( Bavaria, Hessen Kassel etc.)

I'm sure the Anglicans enjoy having the monarch as their head and will try and preserve that position but it doesnt HAVE to be so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:36 PM
Maura724's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis, United States
Posts: 772
I do not know about Holland or the German kingdoms, but the King of Norway and the Queen of Denmark are head of the Lutheran Church of Norway and of Denmark. (However, the Norwegian constitution is being altered, and soon the King will no longer be head of the church.) I'm not 100% sure about Sweden, but I think the monarch used to be head and no longer is.

In Norway the monarch is required to be Lutheran (and that requirement will be preserved in the new constitution at King Harald's express request), although I'm not sure if it applies or ever applied to the monarch's consort and family. In Denmark the monarch, and only the monarch, must be Lutheran. Thus when Margrethe married Henrik, he was not required to convert from Catholicism and did not do so immediately.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 01-15-2011, 12:54 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
In Sweden the monarch must be a Protestant Christian but not necessarily belong to the swedish church. I think that the monarch will have to remain Anglican if the church of England remains ties to the crown. There's no reason the spouse cannot be catholic though. I'm not completely sure about this but I think someone in line for the throne would not lose their place in the succession if they married someone of any other religion than RC.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 01-15-2011, 02:15 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Lafayette, United States
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
It has nothing to do with sexism, it's tradition.
True..it is tradition. But it is a sexist tradition. If the British government/royal court/etc. had been concerned with tradition, the Commonwealth would not exist because they would not have violated the tradition that the inhabitants of those lands, i.e. the indigenous people, would never have been subjugated under British rule. Or, on the flip side of that, the British would never have stopped the "tradition" of expansionism and would still be looking to conquer other territories.

This is not about tradition. It is about money. The Windsors will make sure they maintain all the perks that go along with being the royal family. The parliament will continue to pay lip service to the issue rather than doing anything about it until they find some way to financially benefit from a change. It is as simple as that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 01-15-2011, 02:24 PM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
In Sweden the monarch must be a Protestant Christian but not necessarily belong to the swedish church. I think that the monarch will have to remain Anglican if the church of England remains ties to the crown. There's no reason the spouse cannot be catholic though. I'm not completely sure about this but I think someone in line for the throne would not lose their place in the succession if they married someone of any other religion than RC.
In Seden the King and those in line of succession the King has always to profess the pure evangelical faith according to the Confession of Augfsburg. See here Article 4.
I think in the UK they could lift the bann to marrying catholics but still have the requirement that those in line of succession belong to the anglican Church. So if a member of the Royal Family marries a catholics they can choose if they want the Kids raised as protestants or that they have no succession rights.
__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 01-15-2011, 04:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446

That is virtually the situation now.

The ban on marrying a Roman Catholic isn't really correct. They can marry a Roman Catholic but they lose their succession rights on doing so.

The various Kent families that are the ones that have married/converted to Roman Catholicism have raised their children as Anglicans thus giving them the chance to decide for themselves at the appropriate ages. Frederick and Gabriella of Kent have both remained Anglican while the elder children of the Earl of St Andrews have decided to put their Roman Catholic faith ahead of any chance to become the monarch. The younger daughter of the Earl is still in the line of succession as she hasn't yet been confirmed into either the Anglican or Roman Catholic faith. Although as she is attending a Roman Catholic school it is assumed that she will be confirmed RC at some point in the future. Lord Nicholas, who converted to Roman Catholicism himself, decided that he would make that decision for his children, as babies, by having them baptised as RC and so his children are not in the line of succession.

I do think that the monarch and the spouse of the monarch must be in communion with the Anglican Church, along with their children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 01-16-2011, 01:24 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Why do you think the monarch and the spouse should be in communion with the Anglican Church? Is it because you think that the Queen being the head of the church is a good role for the monarch to have?

I ask because I have never been certain why a monarch has to have a specific religion. Any ides on that theory as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 01-16-2011, 02:17 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
I do think that having the monarch part of a specific church that has been the national church adds to the role of the monarch in the history of the nation.
Take away that position and you take away a large part of the identity of the monarchy. They have no political power but they can be identified with the national church.
As we strip away their royalness - by marrying commoners, wanting to live without staff etc we reduce them to middle class nothings - so the Head of the Church gives them some status and another position to keep them in a place in the heart of the nation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 01-16-2011, 06:19 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Milton Keynes, United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
They have no political power but they can be identified with the national church.
Define national church.

The vast majority of UK Citizens NEVER worship inside an anglican church.

The only time I now attend church is for someones wedding or funeral. As far as I know my children and their friends only go for the same reason, weddings and funerals.

The Idea that the Monarch HAS to be head of the church is absurd.

It may well be that Charles and William will want to continue in that role but if they chose not to I'm sure the Anglicans will manage to find someome to take up the role if they feel they must have someone in that role.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 01-16-2011, 07:01 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lewis View Post
Define national church.
I am sure that you noticed the way I worded my reference to the term national church.

That wasn't an accident.

Quote:
The vast majority of UK Citizens NEVER worship inside an anglican church.
You point...

It is a national church not because of who worships there but because the leaders are involved in the government of the country. You are aware I am sure that the House of Lords still includes the 'Lords Spiritual'.

Quote:
The only time I now attend church is for someones wedding or funeral. As far as I know my children and their friends only go for the same reason, weddings and funerals.
I am sure that you represent the majority of modern people who have lost their faith - and I have no problem with that.

Quote:
The Idea that the Monarch HAS to be head of the church is absurd.
Why?

If you are going to have an anachronistic institution like a monarchy then that monarchy should have certain standards that have applied for generations. To do away with some of the trappings of monarchy is to diminish that institution further and hence we can do away with the institution (and the sooner the better I say) but if we are going to have it then ensure that it maintains the standards of the past. One of the arguments I keep hearing is that the monarchy gives a sense of continuation and history to the nation so being part of the church that helped build that nation is part of that continuation and history.

Quote:
It may well be that Charles and William will want to continue in that role but if they chose not to I'm sure the Anglicans will manage to find someome to take up the role if they feel they must have someone in that role.
It won't be up to them to end it but Parliament. Parliament gave the monarch the title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England in 1559 so the only way to take that title is to have Parliament remove it - and consequently debate the role of the monarch - something they are loathe to have happen.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 01-16-2011, 07:40 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Doesn't Charles want to change the title of the monarch from defender of the faith to defender of faith? The implication being that he would be fine not being head of the church of England?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 01-16-2011, 09:39 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,152
History. There was a time in Europe, a mere few hundred years ago, and in many places in the world today, when your religion was a matter of life or death. It made sense for there to be national churches after the Protestant Reformation. For one thing, it meant that nations would be free to run their own religious affairs independent of Rome. It made sense that the monarch would support the state religion, and, in some cases, enforce it. Although the countries that are monarchies in Europe today have freedom of religion, the monarchies are still figureheads in the national church although they don't have anything to do with determining doctrine and so on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
I ask because I have never been certain why a monarch has to have a specific religion. Any ides on that theory as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 01-16-2011, 11:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
Doesn't Charles want to change the title of the monarch from defender of the faith to defender of faith? The implication being that he would be fine not being head of the church of England?

Charles made that comment about 17 years ago and basically hasn't said anything about it since. It was greeted very badly at the time by the powers that have a say in these things.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 01-17-2011, 09:32 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I do think that having the monarch part of a specific church that has been the national church adds to the role of the monarch in the history of the nation.

Take away that position and you take away a large part of the identity of the monarchy. They have no political power but they can be identified with the national church.

As we strip away their royalness - by marrying commoners, wanting to live without staff etc we reduce them to middle class nothings - so the Head of the Church gives them some status and another position to keep them in a place in the heart of the nation.
You make a good point about the evolution or de-evolution of the royal family depending on who they marry.

The Head of the Church role does give them some status but I wonder if that status will change as people stop going to church. I know in America that church attendance was down. I don't know if that is the case in England.

Do you think it matters if the church was a nondenominational church? I don't have much info on how popular the changing of the rules could be. I know you mentioned that Charles' choice of defender of faith was not well received 17 years ago. I wonder though if people would feel differently about that today giving changing attitudes toward religion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 01-18-2011, 02:37 PM
gfg02's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: *******, Brazil
Posts: 1,411
Royal succession challenge passes first test
Royal succession challenge passes first test | Reuters
__________________
If you find someone you love in your life, then hang on to that love. - Diana, Princess of Wales
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 01-19-2011, 11:12 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,829
Oh my! If equal primo ever becomes succession law, there will be many apples falling off the cart.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 01-19-2011, 01:04 PM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,771
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Oh my! If equal primo ever becomes succession law, there will be many apples falling off the cart.
The only "apples" falling off the cart are likely to be the York girls. Now that is a shocker, is it not?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 01-19-2011, 05:59 PM
Mystiblue's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 147
Could the first child (if female) of William and Kate become Queen

An interesting clip on Australian Television suggested the Constitution could be changed so that the first born of William and Kate - even if female - could become Queen. Here is the link.
Could Prince William's first-born daughter be first in line for the throne? | Ministry of Gossip | Los Angeles Times
__________________

__________________
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
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Succession Issues ladybelline Imperial Family of Japan 918 11-02-2013 12:14 PM
Rules of Succession CrownPrinceLorenzo Royalty Past, Present, and Future 95 10-25-2012 01:55 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton 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 picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan 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 mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:17 AM.

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]