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
 
  #61  
Old 12-13-2012, 07:23 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,419
So this means that the monarch's consort or future consort must agree that their child is brought up Anglican , and if they don't that child, as a catholic will be passed over as monarch.

Have I understood it correctly?
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 12-13-2012, 07:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
This is my understanding. The sovereign MUST be in communion with the Church of England or Church of Canada as it is over here lol

PM Stephen Harper of Canada said this today and David Cameron was quoted a few months ago stating the King or Queen must be an Anglican

PM Harper will shoot the whole thing down if the catholic exclusion is removed
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 12-13-2012, 07:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
The monarch MUST be Anglican - as one of their positins is Supreme Governor of the Church of England. You can't have a Supreme Governor of the Church of England who isn't CoE (it would be like having a Pope who isn't RC).

Anyone who is a RC is still out for this reason but being married to one will be acceptable when this new legislation is eventually past.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes to pass in the UK and then in the other realms as that could be quite interesting if one realm doesn't pass the changes and thus splits the monarchy.

To pass this law it will still have to have the normal proceedings through the Parliament which involves three readings in each house, discussions in committee and has to pass both houses with exactly the same wording. Only one piece of legislation has ever done so in one day and that was the Abdication Act in 1936. This could take a very short period of time or longer, depending on objections and whether or not it leads to raising the debate on becoming a republic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 12-13-2012, 07:45 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,419
Thank you. I didn't know about the Canadian PM proviso. As a secure underpinning, it would be preferable that the 2nd in line ( or as we have now 3rd in line ) made this commitment.

Also please excuse rubbish typing. I'm on an iPad with predictive text and I'm making some classic errors. Just spotted elsewhere the use of levitated insad of alleviated - oops
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 12-13-2012, 07:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Canada blocks Cameron

PM Harper is a true conservative Tory and his heart just isn't in this. He only reluctantly came on board for the very narrow issue of equal primogeniture because of lobbying from New Zealand

However, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has effectively blocked any reform of the Act of Settlement, which would permit a Roman Catholic to become the head of the Church of England.

In a campaign stop in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Harper said Canadians were not prepared debate on the Act of Settlement.

In response to constituent’s question about the royal marriage and the succession, Mr. Harper said on April 20 “the successor to the throne is a man. The next successor to the throne is a man.”

“I don’t think Canadians want to open a debate on the monarchy or constitutional matters at this time,” he noted, adding, “that’s our position, and I just don’t see that as a priority for Canadians right now, at all.”

Without Canada’s support, the Act of Settlement cannot be amended
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 12-13-2012, 08:12 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,526
Duke - if you read the bill - it covers Britain, Scotland and N Ireland. It's the Parliament part of the issue and it does not resolve anything for the rest of the Commonwealth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 12-13-2012, 08:19 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
Duke - if you read the bill - it covers Britain, Scotland and N Ireland. It's the Parliament part of the issue and it does not resolve anything for the rest of the Commonwealth.
I know but eventually all 16 realms will need to be in agreement or all of this is for nothing and Canada will shoot down the entire show if there is any language allowing Catholics near the throne. Unlike in the UK, Canada has a strong conservative majority government and doesn't need to makes deals with the devil, like Cameron must do

Much work to be done yet
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 12-13-2012, 08:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
Section 2 of this bill concerns the "Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic" and specifically states that all persons previously excluded from the line of succession due to this disqualification will be reinstated to the line of succession, provided they are still alive. So they both are back in.
I happily stand corrected. And to the poster who said that "... they are all alike ..." GROW UP! You live in the 21st Century

I wouldn't expect that a Catholic could be the Monarch/Head of the Church of England. Kinda like a Lutheran heading up the Vatican. Everybody needs to calm down, take a breath, and grow up!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 12-13-2012, 08:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
There is no intention to allow a RC to be the monarch, only the spouse.

However if the UK passes this bill and Canada doesn't - and the first child is a girl and then a boy - then the boy will be heir to Canada while the girl will be heir to the UK.

My understanding is that the act won't take effect in one realm until it is passed in all of them but...that mightn't be the case at all and Canada may end up with a different monarch to the rest of the realms.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 12-13-2012, 09:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
And if W&C have a first born son Nick Clegg will have to find a new pet project because all of this will be for naught. Our next three sovereigns after the Queen will be men. I'll be long dead by that time

Canada will have no issue as long as the king or queen and their children remain Anglicans
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:18 AM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 318
Maybe all the realms will pass it and then W&C will have two girls like George VI did, and it will all be for nothing!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:51 AM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I have actually read it the other way round - initially this was only to affect Charles' descendents but now it is to apply to all descendents born after 2011.
More changes to come I imagine.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 12-15-2012, 04:16 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425


Perhaps. Then again, maybe we'll have the Swedish scenario when the King had a girl first and then a boy, which resulting in Prince Carl Philip being born as Heir Apparent to the Throne only to be downgraded to second-in-the-line (after his elder sister, Crown Princess Victoria) once Equal Primogeniture was adopted.

I think if the law has been unanimously agreed upon by all Commonwealth Realms, they should proceed with it sooner rather then later.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 12-15-2012, 01:36 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Succession to the Crown Act 2013

SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN ACT 2013

A BILL TO Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes.

Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1 Succession to the Crown not to depend on gender

In determining the succession to the Crown, the gender of a person born after 28 October 2011 does not give that person, or that person’s descendants, precedence over any other person (whenever born).

2 Removal of disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic

(1) A person is not disqualified from succeeding to the Crown or from possessing it as a result of marrying a person of the Roman Catholic faith.

(2) Subsection (1) applies in relation to marriages occurring before the time of the coming into force of this section where the person concerned is alive at that time (as well as in relation to marriages occurring after that time).

3 Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

(1) A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2) Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a) signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,
(b) declared in Council, and
(c) recorded in the books of the Privy Council.

(3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.

(4) The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,
(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,
(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and
(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

(6) Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.
... ...

5 Commencement and short title


(1) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The other provisions of this Act come into force on such day and at such time as the Lord President of the Council may by order made by statutory instrument appoint.
(3) Different days and times may be appointed for different purposes.
(4) This Act may be cited as the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.



__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:10 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,034
As far as I know from past experience, a Roman Catholic who marries a Protestant or a person of another religious faith must promise to raise his or her children Catholic, and the non-Catholic prospective spouse must agree to this. That is the way it was decades ago in the U.S. when I was familiar with it, but possibly this changed. Princess Michael of Kent is Catholic but her two children by Prince Michael are said to have been raised Protestant. Likewise with Caroline, the Princess of Hanover, who is Catholic but is raising her Hannover child as a Protestant.
As far as I am concerned, there should not be this legal divide between Protestant and Catholic, as both pledge allegiance to Jesus Christ even above allegiance to their respective churches. However, if this still exists, the Catholic party to the Catholic-Protestant marriage could be accused of hypocrisy and even of lying, if they promised to raise their children Catholic when they wed. if they did not promise, then this is moot. If they made this promise in bad faith, then I think they should feel insincere, but probably they have resolved the matter within their own consciences.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 12-15-2012, 03:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Our Sovereign Queen took an oath on June 2 1953 and when you read this oath you will realise that there will never be a catholic monarch on the Maple Throne of Canada

Coronation Oath, 2nd June 1953

PM Cameron and PM Harper have said that the Sovereign of the Realms will be an Anglican and that's it.

Article 37 from the BCP states The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 12-16-2012, 01:33 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
" (3) The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown. "

That's worded interestingly. It seems to apply to all of the person's descendants rather than just the ones who are born in the disqualifying marriage. Hopefully it would never be an issue, but it would seem possible for a parent who has become unmarried through one means or the other to spite his or her children by remarrying without permission.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 12-16-2012, 04:22 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,491
To my reading of this there are two interesting points in that clause:

1. The person themselves lose their inheritance rights by undergoing this illegal marriage - not just their children.

Say Harry gets drunk one night and undergoes a marriage ceremony which his mates witness and the officiating person was a licencsed marriage celebrant he would immediately lose his place.

That hasn't been the case in the past - e.g. George IV underwent a marriage ceremony with Maria Fitzherbert but because he didn't have consent from the monarch he was able to later marry and remained in the line of succession although any children from Maria would have had no claim - like William IV's descendents have no claim (unless they have married someone with a legitimate claim).

Children born out of wedlock have never had inheritance rights to titles and their descendents can't claim due to an illegitimate ancestor.

2. It does seem strange that the wording implies that if William and Catherine divorced and then he married without consent that this current unborn child would also lose its rights.

Hopefully this confusion will be picked up in the committee stages and reworded before the law is past.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 12-16-2012, 06:15 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,663
You make two interesting points, Bertie.

As for the first one, it is indeed a marked departure, and one of which I approve. The State should not "own" the heir. If the heir chooses to give up their place in the line of succession that way, they should have the right to do so. With respect to your hypothetical example, a person who is so silly as to get married while drunk shouldn't be in line to be monarch anyway. As for the second point, I read it the same way, and agree that it needs to be amended.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 12-19-2012, 02:19 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
This 6-persons-next-in-line thing is not logical at all. It means that, after the Duke of Cambridge's child is born, Princess Beatrice of York will be excluded if she marries without a permission regardless of who her spouse is, while her younger sister will be able to marry a drug lord and remain in the line (provided that Eugenie's marriage takes place before Beatrice's). In fact, in that scenario, Princess Eugenie of York and her children sired by a drug lord would become closer to the throne.

I wonder where they got that idea from. No other monarchy has marriage approval requirements like that. Normally, all people in line have to obtain consent.
__________________

__________________
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
Frederik and Mary's Official/Business Visit to Australia; November 19-26, 2011 Princess Robijn Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 295 08-28-2014 08:34 PM
The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change GrandDuchess Royal House of Sweden 276 06-30-2014 12:52 AM
The Act of Settlement 1701 and the Line of Succession Elise,LadyofLancaster British Royals 926 04-15-2014 11:41 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary Official Visit to Brazil; September 16-21, 2012 ricarda Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family 81 10-05-2012 04:15 PM
The Third Succession Act (Henry VIII, 1543) Daz_Voz British Royals 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor 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 nobility olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:05 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]