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
 
  #161  
Old 08-03-2012, 03:29 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
Like I've said earlier, I sure welcome a change, so that Roman Catholics aren't discriminated anymore. But I'm less sure about what to think about the first-born, reguardless of gender, being the heir appearent. I don't want women to be discriminated, but monarchy is so full of old traditions anyway, that I don't mind male primogeniture, even though it would seem awfully dated these days in many other situations. And like Graham Smith said, one of the children would still be the most privileged.
Those in line for the throne won't lose their place if they wed a Roman Catholic. An RC could be prince or queen consort, but never the monarch.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 08-03-2012, 05:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,182
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.


LaRae
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 08-03-2012, 05:13 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.
LaRae
That's accurate right now, and in accordance with the Act of Settlement 1701.

However, one of the proposed (but not yet accepted) changes allows those in the Line of Succession to marry Catholics without giving up their succession rights. Those in the Line of Succession cannot be Catholics themselves though, and the Monarch must belong to the Church of England.

Basically, it means that, for instance, Prince Harry could marry a Catholic and remain in the succession line, but he could not convert himself. His children would also be raised in Anglican faith (or any other but Catholic, really) to have succession rights.
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 08-03-2012, 09:36 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Los Alamos, United States
Posts: 1,032
The sticker in the change to marriage to a Catholic is this: The Catholic partner would have to agree to have her/his child raised outside the Catholic faith. Any "good Catholic" will not agree to this. Catholic law is that a person cannot marry a non-Catholic until the non-C spouse agrees to raise the children Catholic. A priest would not participate in the marriage ceremony with this impediment. That is the way it is unless any changes have been made recently.
Some Catholics are willing to give up their place in the Church by allowing their children to be raised Protestant. Princess Michael of Kent is a Catholic whose children were raised Protestant. She is therefore not a member in good standing of the Catholic Church.
It's different with Princess Caroline of Monaco. When she married Ernst August, she was not married in the Catholic Church, as she was with her first two marriages. Her daughter is being raised Protestant. Therefore she never had to promise to raise her daughter Catholic, and didn't break a promise made in her marriage.

I do not think one could find a Catholic who would marry into the British Royal Family if he/she had to raise children outside the faith; that is, unless that person wanted to leave the Church anyway. It's a sticker that hasn't been talked about, but a big one. Can you imagine, for instance, if Princess Alexandra of Lux were tapped to be married to Prince Harry? She would NOT agree to the stipulation on children, so no marriage.
The Lux family takes their faith seriously, for the most part.

The title Lady of Rothes was semi-salic since the 12th century. Peter Pollock who built the castle of Rothes in northern Scotland left it to his daughter Muriel, as he had no sons.
Muriel had no sons, and left it to her daughter Eva. Eva had no sons, but her daughter married a powerful knight and we don't even remember her name. However, that title went to any girl descending from Peter if there were no boy in the way. This title remained until late in the 20th century, with the last Lady of Rothes being Georgiana Maxwell.
I am a descendant of Peter Pollock's brother Robert. Darn, I missed my chance by being a descendant of the second son, who had his own castle in Renfrewshire. I believe the title was put in abeyance anyway, why I don't know. I didn't know anything about this until 16 years ago when I looked for my ancestors.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 08-03-2012, 10:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,182
Unless it's different in Europe than it is here in the US, the requirement to raise the children in the Church has been relaxed to something along the lines of doing their best to see they are raised in the faith, so one could be a Catholic in good standing and have a 'mixed marriage' situation where it would cause a division in the marriage if the Catholic spouse insisted the children be raised in the Catholic Faith. The non-Catholic spouse no longer has to sign a statement or agree that the children must be raised Catholic.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 08-04-2012, 01:45 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
I always understood that in the UK if a Royal marries a Catholic they must give up their place in the line of succession.
Just to clarify this, there is no "they must give up their place" (as there may be with a formal deed of renunciation or abdication). They don't have to do anything - the instrument is set in law enacted by the Parliament. The moment they marry a Roman Catholic the Act of Settlement comes into play and the person is automatically and instantly "made forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm..."
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 08-29-2012, 07:56 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 72
Remaining discriminatory rules

As you are all no doubt aware, some time in the not so distant future, legislation will be brought about converting the rule of succession to the British throne from male-preference primogeniture to absolute primogeniture.

This decision has met, near as I can tell, with zero resistance and appears to be in keeping with modern ideas about the sexes.

There will always be a balance between tradition and modernity with regard to a constitutional monarchy: it is important not to be completely out of touch with public sentiment, but at the same time the link with the past is a very valuable commodity for a royal family.

There are of course a number of "sex-specific" titles, and it is hard to imagine for instance the Dukedom of Cornwall suddenly being a unisex office, or that someone will come up with a Prince Royal title to balance the Princess Royal...

But it does occur to me that some remaining and avoidable elements of sexual discrimination that a modern minded monarchist might criticise. Two are spelt out in King George V's letters patent of 1917. They could be considered separate issues.

1/ that the Sovereign's daughters' children are not RH, and are not princesses or princes

2/ that the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (and no other great grandchildren of the Sovereign) are RH and have the style Prince

The other issue is a more general one and I don't know what piece of legislation covers it, to be honest:

3/ wives take their husband's style and not vice versa.


To my mind, the removal of the restriction 1/ above (ie establishing that all grandchildren of the Sovereign are RH and style Prince or Princess) would be unlikely to face much resistance or put anyone's nose out of joint.

On the other hand, the traditions connected to the direct male line succession to the Prince of Wales are highly valued by some and one could imagine there would be an objection to the removal of the special case 2/ above.

But Number 3/ : this is a very deepseated tradition, connected with common ideas about what "wife" and "husband" mean, probably. It's hard to imagine people would have accepted Philip as Elizabeth's King Consort in 1952, or even a fresh Prince Mark in 1973. Would they, in the coming decade, be ready to accept that someone with no title could be elevated to the status of a Prince by marrying Eugenie or Beatrice?

I would like to hear your ideas on these things, and to learn more about these traditions and rules.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:08 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,330
There is an existing thread to discuss the primogeniture changes and titles and styles. When it comes to the letters patent, IMO it's going to change a lot that doesn't need changing. The Primogeniture issue didn't even need sorting out now, there is a lot better things the government should be concentrating.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:11 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 72
Well yes but these questions are not about the primogeniture changes.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 08-29-2012, 08:14 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,330
I've updated my post.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 09-04-2012, 09:16 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9
I can guarantee you that this proposed legislation will not be effected. Not only are there more pressing concerns than David Cameron bludgeoning our constitution, the ratification of all constituent realms with their respective constitutions will be logistical nightmare, with our without verbal agreement being made. Add to the mix that backbench conservatives will never support this motion and you have an idiotic recipe thatís doomed to failure Ė God knows why Cameron thought it opportune to make such a foolish and, unconservative, statement.

Britain isnít Sweden or Norway or any other quasi socialist hotspot Ė conservatives & monarchists will not stand for the complete inversion of the monarchy and our constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellydofc View Post
I don't know how quickly this issue will proceed because at the moment it's a nonissue really. The next two heirs to the throne are male not matter what. If William and Katherine have only girls or a girl first then I can see how it might become more pressing but since it could be a good 70 - 80 years before that child succeeds to the throne there is loads of time to deal with this issue if that's what the UK decides it wants.
Why is it pressing? Nobody cares about it apart from the Guardian and evidently David Cameron, much to the chagrin of the Conservative's core vote. I can guarantee you that this legislation will not be passed. It's all hot air.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 09-04-2012, 10:53 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,330
Sorry but the line of succession and the catholic issue will be altered. If The Queen agrees with the changes, why on earth should any monarchist disagree with their monarch?

There are more pressing issue right now, but as far as I know steps are already in motion for these changes to be applied. It's not going to be forgotten.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 09-04-2012, 11:05 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Sorry but the line of succession and the catholic issue will be altered. If The Queen agrees with the changes, why on earth should any monarchist disagree with their monarch?

There are more pressing issue right now, but as far as I know steps are already in motion for these changes to be applied. It's not going to be forgotten.
The Catholic debarment will take theological legerdemain to rectify: I won't be holding my breath that they'll be able to remedy the issue. It really isnít a pressing concern.

The issue of succession is altogether different: I'm not aware the Monarch has even been consulted or that the wishes of the Royal family will be considered; even if they are clandestinely consulted, I doubt they'll voice an opinion overtly - it isn't the done thing.

I guarantee you these changes will not be implemented. It's all hot air. It was part of Cameron's jolt towards the leftwing, his banal attempt to woo the metropolitan middle class. There are already signs even today that he's reneging that initiative.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 09-04-2012, 11:05 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
But it is potentially a pressing issue-the clock starts ticking the moment Kate becomes pregnant
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:06 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Palmerston View Post
The issue of succession is altogether different: I'm not aware the Monarch has even been consulted or that the wishes of the Royal family will be considered; even if they are clandestinely consulted, I doubt they'll voice an opinion overtly - it isn't the done thing.
Not only was the Queen consulted, Her Majesty has given her approval to the proposal. And in a very public venue, the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State back in October. I believe that this was even reported on in the national news here in the US. IIRC, the theme of the meeting was centered around women and their potential in the Commonwealth.

The manner in which the proposal is being acted upon -- discussions to assure the language of the legislation is acceptable to all realms that need to approve it -- bodes well for its eventual passage and enactment. I believe it is simply a matter of time.
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:08 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Bear in mind---the Queen is a woman of course!!!
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:16 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
Not only was the Queen consulted, Her Majesty has given her approval to the proposal. And in a very public venue, the meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State back in October. I believe that this was even reported on in the national news here in the US. IIRC, the theme of the meeting was centered around women and their potential in the Commonwealth.

The manner in which the proposal is being acted upon -- discussions to assure the language of the legislation is acceptable to all realms that need to approve it -- bodes well for its eventual passage and enactment. I believe it is simply a matter of time.
Absolute rubbish - if the Prime Minister has decided upon legislation of this sort then it behoves the Monarch to accept the proposal whether or not she agrees with it, to say otherwise would invoke a constiutional crisis. I can assure you, absolutely, that this legislation will not pass; you're completely misreading British politics.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:18 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,166
I definitely think that there should be equal primogeniture, but that the Brits can do what we did in Denmark and wait until the subject becomes relevant. Say that William and Catherine's first couple of children will be boys, they don't really need to change it until there comes a girl (or even, until the girl might get a baby brother). I don't know if this made sense. That said, if their firstborn is a girl, it should be changed right away.
__________________
"Blessed be god, the king, the queen and all our sweet children be in good health."
ó Lady Margaret Beaufort, April 1497

Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:21 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 18
No-if the Queen was not in favour she would simply not say anything at all-not openly commend and approve it as she has done
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:27 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
I definitely think that there should be equal primogeniture, but that the Brits can do what we did in Denmark and wait until the subject becomes relevant. Say that William and Catherine's first couple of children will be boys, they don't really need to change it until there comes a girl (or even, until the girl might get a baby brother). I don't know if this made sense. That said, if their firstborn is a girl, it should be changed right away.
Absolutely not. The arguments for equal primogeniture are facile - there are no satisfying intellectual arguments to restructure the rules of succession. This is a minority project wishing to impose their bizarre quest for egalitarianism on something that is inherent inegalitarian. Why the first born? That's grossly unfair to later born siblings - why not elect the monarch from all available sons & daughters? The entire thrust of the argument is flawed. It isnít logically cohesive.

I have never seen any evidence that the majority of backbench Conservatives, especially the Conservative right, would ever support these proposals. This is very much a Cameroon idea that smacks of desperate politics to 'modernise' the Conservative Party. If it canít get rid of the remaining hereditary peers, what hope of this monumental constitutional change? What was said in the Queens Speech might as well have been said last decade for all the relevance it has given the current economic climate.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (1 members and 1 guests)
VictoriaB
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 942 03-09-2015 10:32 PM
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's Official 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
Prince Frederik and Princess Mary's 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 Royal History 4 07-25-2012 03:17 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium carl philip charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death duchess of cambridge fashion fashion poll germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg maxima nobility norway royals official visit ottoman picture of the week poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess mary queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:21 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]