Questions About Titles

[branchg]

Originally Posted by H.M. Margrethe

I think that the reason for Camilla not jusing the titel as Princess of Wales is in respect for both the late Princess Diana and her 2 children William and Harry.

I agree this is the sole reason for her decision. It would not have been acceptable, given that Diana was the mother of William and Harry and died with the style "Princess of Wales".

But that accomodation must end when Charles becomes King. Diana was never going to be Queen and Camilla will be the wife of The King with her own rights as Queen Consort.

[Marsel]

I have recently read that in a Russian book about British Royalty (which was unfortunately inaccurate on a number of issues, hence my desire to verify this doubtful matter) that all people in line for the British Throne are (or can become) British subjects, without exceptions. I find this unlikely and dubious at best.

I know of a court case filed by Ernest August IV of Hannover in 1957, when he successfully claimed a British nationality under the 1705 Sophia Naturalization Act. However, I thought that the Act was repealed by a later Act (British Nationality Act of 1948, if I am not mistaken) and in any case, concerned only the Protestant descendants of the Electress. To my understanding, Ernest August succeeded in obtaining a British Nationality only because he was born before the British Nationality Act was adopted and raised in Protestant faith.


Could one of the many knowledgeable members of this board set the record straight: can any descendant of Electress Sophia or anyone in the Line of the Succession to the British Throne automatically qualify for British citizenship?
Another question: The Sophie Naturalization Act didn’t exclusively refer to the legitimate descendants only; would that mean even illegitimate descendants of the Electress (or rather, illegitimate descendants of her descendants) would qualify for British Citizenship (assuming they were born before 1948, if the British Nationality Act canceled the Sophia Naturalization Act, as I believe it to be the case)?

[MAfan]

As far as I know, any person who is a descendant of Electress Sophia, born before 1948 and Protestant (all the three conditions are needed) is automatically a British Citizen.
Nothing is said about the necessity of being a legitimate descendant; the act is referred to the "issue of her body"; so I don't think that the act is valid only for the legitimate descendants.

[Marsel]

Thank you MAfan.
That's more or less what I thought, however the book I referred to was very clear that any descendant of the late Electress (without exceptions or restrictions) would automatically qualify, which I didn't find very plausible.
This just adds to a number of other inaccuracies in the book, mind you.

I assume that by "Protestant" faith, they don't exclusively mean the "Church of England" and other Protestant Churches would be fine as well.

[MAfan]

I guess that it refers to all the Protestant Churches; and I guess that its originary meaning was "not Catholic" rather then Protestant in the very meaning of the word...

[H.M. Margrethe]

Originally Posted by branchg

I agree this is the sole reason for her decision. It would not have been acceptable, given that Diana was the mother of William and Harry and died with the style "Princess of Wales".

But that accomodation must end when Charles becomes King. Diana was never going to be Queen and Camilla will be the wife of The King with her own rights as Queen Consort.

Diana once said in a interwive that the one thing she realy wich to be was to be Queen of hearts nothing els.
Well let Diana be the Queen of hearts and Camilla be the Queen Consort

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by MAfan

I guess that it refers to all the Protestant Churches; and I guess that its originary meaning was "not Catholic" rather then Protestant in the very meaning of the word...

I think so as well. I wonder whether that would mean that Orthodox Churches would be acceptable.
Thank you for your answers, MAfan!

[jonnydep]

[quote=Marsel;961969] I wonder whether that would mean that Orthodox Churches would be acceptable.
/quote]

hello marsel.
i have just checked the line of succession to the british throne, and yes the ex king constantine II, asummimg he is greek orthodox, is listed has being number 428 (when that version was issued (2001) , today his place may have altered due to recent deaths etc).

so i think that should answer your question, and i will check for the russian factor for you, as i feel your question was more aimed at the russian orthodox church then the greek ?

update.
yes grand duchess maria v and her son george , is listed as 111 and 112 in line of succession (again as of 2001). i am asumming that both are russian orthodox !!!

a interesting note is that the "offical" (as published by buckingham palace) line / order of succession to the british throne only lists the first 100 individuals. can anyone please tell us why this is so ?

[MAfan]

Yes, Orthodoxes can be in the line of Succession, but are they referred to by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705? I fear not.

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Yes, Orthodoxes can be in the line of Succession, but are they referred to by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705? I fear not.

Technically, the Line of the Succession is discriminative only towards the Catholics. However, I don't think the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 covered the Orthodox Churches as well. A really shrewd lawyer could probably prove that the 'Protestant' in the Act meant 'non-Catholic' though.

Originally Posted by jonnydep

i have just checked the line of succession to the british throne, and yes the ex king constantine II, asummimg he is greek orthodox, is listed has being number 428 (when that version was issued (2001) , today his place may have altered due to recent deaths etc).

so i think that should answer your question, and i will check for the russian factor for you, as i feel your question was more aimed at the russian orthodox church then the greek ?

update.
yes grand duchess maria v and her son george , is listed as 111 and 112 in line of succession (again as of 2001). i am asumming that both are russian orthodox !!!

Thank you for the information, jonnydep.
I was indeed more interested whether the Russian Orthodox Church would qualify as 'Protestant' mentioned in the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705.

a interesting note is that the "offical" (as published by buckingham palace) line / order of succession to the british throne only lists the first 100 individuals. can anyone please tell us why this is so ?[

I suppose only the first 100 are listed because there are few circumstances under which anyone would need to know the names of anyone further down the line of the succession. I think at one point, the official website listed only the first 20 people in the Line of the succession.

It's only those interested in genealogy and succession issues (like the members of the Royal Forum), who would ever like or need to know other people in the Line of the Succession and their claims.

[MAfan]

Well, only the first 39 people are members of the present British Royal Family; only the first 54 are descendants of King Geore V, and nly the first 84 are descendants of King Edward VII, including the members of a present Royal Family (Norway). Then starts the long list of all the other people (1600 ca) who have rights to the British Throne, belonging to all the other european Royal Families, less or more. And all this list is quite useless, I don't think that one day we need a King whose position is n. 813 in the Line of Succession, for example...

[jonnydep]

another interesting note, is that i have just read the following

" the sovereign must, in addition, to be in communation with the church of england and must swear to preserve the established church of england (and that of scotland) and uphold the protestant line of succession".

does this mean that if a greek or russian orthodox were to succeed to the british throne, they may have to renounce that faith and covert to the established church of england to be sovereign ........ ?.

one must remember that the sovereign is also the head of the church.
it would seem a little odd that the head of the church is a member of the greek / russian orthodox church !!!!!.

another question i have is concerning camilla, duchess of cornwall.

whlist married to her former husband andrew parker- bowles, whom is a catholic, did she convert over to his faith, and if so, did she (on her divorce) covert back to the church of england ? .

the reason i ask, should be odivous..........

[MAfan]

I guess she is Anglican; something like Prince Michael, who has married a Catholis but who is Anglican...But Camilla's first marriage is ended in a divorce, and here is the problem: a future head of the Anglican Church (that refuses the divorce) who is married to a divorced woman...
About your first question, it seems that this person has to convert...

[jonnydep]

yes, i understand, anything after the first 100 shown in the line of succession would be rather academic !!!

thank you marsel and mafan........

[branchg]

Originally Posted by MAfan

I guess she is Anglican; something like Prince Michael, who has married a Catholis but who is Anglican...But Camilla's first marriage is ended in a divorce, and here is the problem: a future head of the Anglican Church (that refuses the divorce) who is married to a divorced woman...
About your first question, it seems that this person has to convert...

Camilla remained Anglican during her marriage to Parker-Bowles, so there was no issue there. The Church now recognizes divorce and remarriage, so there was no obstacle to Charles and Camilla marrying, especially since Charles was considered to be a widower, rather than a divorcee, in the eyes of the Church.

The matter was a political one, in terms of whether the Government was prepared to consent to it. Since the public was willing to accept it, Blair and the Archbishop of Canterbury both gave their approval.

[MAfan]

Did they really need the consent of the Government? Not only the consent of the Queen and/or of her Privy Council?

[Osipi]

does this mean that if a greek or russian orthodox were to succeed to the british throne, they may have to renounce that faith and covert to the established church of england to be sovereign ........ ?.

one must remember that the sovereign is also the head of the church.
it would seem a little odd that the head of the church is a member of the greek / russian orthodox church !!!!

This brings up an interesting thought that I found earlier on this illustrious forum. Somewhere it has been stated that one thought of the Prince of Wales when he accedes the throne was thinking he'd prefer the title of "Defender of Faiths" rather than Defender of the Faith. I think this would be due to the fact that the UK (as anywhere else) is a global community as far as practices of faith go.

About Camilla and faith. I believe she stayed with her Angelican faith but upon marriage to APB promised that their children would be raised Catholic.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by branchg

I agree this is the sole reason for her decision. It would not have been acceptable, given that Diana was the mother of William and Harry and died with the style "Princess of Wales".

Another reason is that I've come to realize Camilla is also a woman of grace and class in that she realizes its not whatever title and style she is known by, but her duty and actions that reflect on her husband the Prince of Wales and King Charles in the future. She's a very down to earth person and in that respect I think she's alot like HM.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Did they really need the consent of the Government? Not only the consent of the Queen and/or of her Privy Council?

The government is a subset of the Privy Council (I believe the cabinet is actually a committee of the council), and they are the only members of the Privy Council who give constitutional advice to the Queen on a day-to-day basis, so getting consent from the Privy Council is the same as getting consent from the government.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by MAfan

Did they really need the consent of the Government? Not only the consent of the Queen and/or of her Privy Council?

The Queen could not have granted her consent without taking advice from the Privy Council, which constitutionally she must do. But the important consent would be The Prime Minister's after taking soundings in the Cabinet and the Commons.