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
 
  #561  
Old 03-28-2009, 03:49 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
This is exactly the first thing I have thought...together with the fact that a Catholic King or Queen is a contradiction, because the King is the Head of the Anglican Church...
But make me understand: is this reform only an idea and a possibility, or is sure that the laws will change?
It is only a possibility, at the moment the private members bill was blocked but the government has 'promised' it will look at changing the law. One minister has said that even if ALL the commonwealth countries agree to a change, it could take years. Labour is in power at the moment, with elections due next year, so unless the Tories take it up, it will once again be put to one side.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 03-28-2009, 03:58 PM
PrincessofEurope's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,816
I woudnt mind a change in the law to allow for equal succession as out greatest monatchs have actually tended to be strong woman (Elizabeth I etc) but would object to any change to allow a catholic having a place in a line of succession as the UK is a Protestant country and the monarch and successors should be Protestant.
__________________

__________________
This is the stuff of fairytales

Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 03-28-2009, 04:59 PM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
It is only a possibility, at the moment the private members bill was blocked but the government has 'promised' it will look at changing the law. One minister has said that even if ALL the commonwealth countries agree to a change, it could take years. Labour is in power at the moment, with elections due next year, so unless the Tories take it up, it will once again be put to one side.
Thank you, Skydragon; Italian medias reported the news as a cerainty...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 03-28-2009, 05:20 PM
Elise27's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 153
As an american I can say that it is to me not comprehensible how the UK can have discrimination against catholics written into its laws this way. Its silly to worry about the place of christianity in regards to removing the ban against catholics, but my understanding is that its legally alright if a member of the royal family were to marry a muslim. Anti-catholic attitudes are written into law in the united kingdom. One has to remember that there are millions of catholics in the UK and the queen is their queen too. I understand the argument that some would make that the monarchy discriminates based on birth, fine, but that is different than writing into law that a person can't marry a catholic. The two things are different. Also all these people who oppose this change, I dont see how its going to affect them anyway it will only affect those born into the royal family and those who marry in, to me it shows bigotry that's all. If the monarchy is to survive, granted there are things that cannot change because that defeats the whole purpose of monarchy, but in other respects it has to adapt to the times. If this doesnt happen now it will happen eventually under the reign of charles and I doubt he would oppose it or william.

And for goodness sake this has nothing to do with which institution is more discriminatory. Polls show overwhelming support for this change. And as has been expressed if any member of the royal family wanted to want wreak havoc and challenge this on a human rights based argument, if say prince william wanted to marry a catholic, this law would not stand. Would a member of the royal family do this? probably not because it would turn the institution on its head but frankly bigotry should not be written into law in this way.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 03-28-2009, 05:30 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,040
The U.K. is officially a Protestant Christian country and yet there is no law stopping Royals married to non-Christians such as Jews or Muslims from inheriting the Throne. That is why Her Majesty's Catholic subjects feel so offended.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 03-28-2009, 05:38 PM
Elise27's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
Isn't that a bit contradicting? I mean, monarchy is based on discrimination. However you put it, it discriminates someone. It discriminates me, for example, because I can't be head of state of the UK, but I don't mind. I don't cry for absolute equality
Legally two different things, its one thing to say the heir to the throne shall be the first-born child of the sovereign and quite another to say the heir or sovereign cant marry a catholic, when he can marry a muslim or atheist. Im a lawyer and the distinction to me is important.

I actually agree with Beatrixfan's comment about these changes, but it bothers me that people should be so concerned about removing this law because its would remove discrimination against catholics or who fail to see what is wrong with it. Its going to happen at some point whether it is now or in 20yrs. It has been commented that prince charles wants to be defender of the faiths as well. And were prince william's first child to be a daughter and then to have a son this would come to the forefront. Also the talk about princess ann is absurd because this would only effect the current line of succession if its made retroactive which should not be done.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 03-28-2009, 05:49 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Does it really matter? To be honest I'm far more interested in not being able to get a doctor's appointment when I need one, the regular stabbings in my local area and the rising price of almost everything. Whether Princess Anne is fourth or tenth in the Royal race really doesn't bother me one bit.
Actually, I care about both of those things as Anne would make a HELL of a monarch! And if you have a strong monarch who's tough on crime, then those stabbings will stave off. . . no pun intended. . . .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 03-28-2009, 05:58 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
Actually, I care about both of those things as Anne would make a HELL of a monarch! And if you have a strong monarch who's tough on crime, then those stabbings will stave off. . . no pun intended. . . .
Yes I agree that Anne would make a hell of a monarch but even if this law changes it wouldn't make her queen, she would be behind Charles, Will and Harry correct me if i'm wrong.

Also i believe this law will matter for the descendents of william and harry not the present queens chidlren am i right? Like Norway, the chnage in succesion applied to Ingrid Alexandra and her desecendents, not to Martha-Louise.
x
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 03-28-2009, 06:11 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
Yes I agree that Anne would make a hell of a monarch but even if this law changes it wouldn't make her queen, she would be behind Charles, Will and Harry correct me if i'm wrong.
I believe you're correct, which is why I like her (Anne) in 4th and not 10th. But whatever I like is irrelavant. She may not be comfortable in 4th with her children in a higher bracket.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 03-28-2009, 06:17 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
I don't think there was a suggestion that the monarch could be a Roman Catholic - only that they could be married to one.

My reading of the articles is that the monarch will still have to be a communicant member of the Anglican Church.

That is where a problem may lie - as a spouse being anything other than protestant could influence any offspring to turn away from protestantism leaving the line insecure if say William married a RC and then their children were baptised Anglican but the heir decided at say age 15 to convert to Roman Catholicism to follow his mother's version of Christianity.

Personally I think they should change it to be the same as elsewhere in Europe - the spouse has to be Anglican.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 03-28-2009, 06:20 PM
Emeralds and Opals's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: *****, United States
Posts: 582
NIGEL JONES: What if? Henry VIII's sister had taken the throne...or Kaiser Bill had become our king | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 03-28-2009, 06:20 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,238
I'll be interested to see, should this ever be done, how it will be handled in Canada. There's one school of thought that says it would be considered a Constitutional Amendment affecting the office of monarch, and would thus require all ten provinces to consent. Even if they all agreed in principle, I could see one or more holding out just to be contrary.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 03-28-2009, 07:09 PM
zembla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Camden, United States
Posts: 875
The only thing that should be changed is the marrying a Catholic, the line of succession is better off staying as it is. Changing that may bring too many problems...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 03-28-2009, 08:01 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
I'll be interested to see, should this ever be done, how it will be handled in Canada. There's one school of thought that says it would be considered a Constitutional Amendment affecting the office of monarch, and would thus require all ten provinces to consent. Even if they all agreed in principle, I could see one or more holding out just to be contrary.
In Australia, if seen as a Constitutional Amendment, it would require a referendum of the people and would need a majority of the population AND a majority of the states (it is possible to have a majority of the public support an amendment but have it fail because a majority of the states don't support it e.g. if the vast majority of NSW and Victoria voted Yes but the majority in the other states voted no then it would be lost even though the overall vote was a yes.)

Of course many in Australia would simply say - let's not bother about the cost of this referendum and simply have one for a republic and be done with Britain.

Personally I don't think it does need a referendum as I understand that our constitution simply accepts the monarch of Great Britain as our own but I am not a constitutional expert and am only doing s simple reading of the constitution and other experts may have a different interpretation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 03-29-2009, 09:58 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,126
I believe that the line of sucession should change, but not marrying a catholic.
x
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 03-29-2009, 10:26 AM
Sir_knight's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the East, United Kingdom
Posts: 16
I am reading a lot of posts here saying that marrying a catholic would be fine? Again I feel that only adds to the problem. Put simply why should the head of the Church of England have the ability to marry a Roman Catholic? The idea to use the language of the Roman Church is an Anathema of an idea. For all those that think it will be fine I ask you to look at history.

As an Anglican I do not want the head of my church to be a Roman dictator who lives on the Vatican Hill.
__________________
Let there be light: and there was light.
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 03-29-2009, 10:39 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir_knight View Post
I am reading a lot of posts here saying that marrying a catholic would be fine? Again I feel that only adds to the problem. Put simply why should the head of the Church of England have the ability to marry a Roman Catholic? The idea to use the language of the Roman Church is an Anathema of an idea. For all those that think it will be fine I ask you to look at history.

As an Anglican I do not want the head of my church to be a Roman dictator who lives on the Vatican Hill.
Leaving your ideas about the Pope out (since I myself am Catholic), I agree with you; a Catholic who become Head of the Church of England (because this is the real matter, not his consort) can only adds problems...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 03-29-2009, 10:44 AM
Sir_knight's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In the East, United Kingdom
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
Leaving your ideas about the Pope out (since I myself am Catholic), I agree with you; a Catholic who become Head of the Church of England (because this is the real matter, not his consort) can only adds problems...

Indeed it will. It will also finally split theChurch of England and cause a whole host of other problems.
__________________
Let there be light: and there was light.
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 03-29-2009, 12:01 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Elise, I haven't said anything about marrying Roman Catholics yet.

I do not have an opinion about allowing royals to marry Roman Catholics. I don't have anything against those marriages, but I don't think there will ever be a Roman Catholic royal consort in the UK again (just like there will never be a Protestant royal consort of Spain or Roman Catholic royal consort of Norway) even if they allow those marriages.
How do I know? Well, British princes and princesses were never forbidden to marry Muslims or Jews, yet none of them married a Jew or a Muslim. Why do you think they'll marry Roman Catholics now when they were forbidden to do so for 300 years?

Keeping that in mind, I think nothing will be achieved by a new Act of Succession. In fact, it could only make matters worse, because the Act of Settlement is what put Elizabeth II on the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 03-29-2009, 12:13 PM
Elise27's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 153
I dont know enough about the dutch monarchy, but Princess Maxima is catholic and her children are not catholic. I think this is just a storm in a teapot and boy some people sound really bigotted when they start talking about these things. Lets see for starters any catholic willing to marry a non-catholic is likely not a conservative catholic, I might be willing to say that most catholics dont agree with everything the pope says. The notion of a catholic king taking orders from Rome sounds so out of touch with reality. Also, there is the possiblity that at some point the church of england might slplit from the monarchy regardless of whether this law is changed. But since sensibilities are not likely to change, particularly in the upper classes, it is unlikely that a future king of england will marry a catholic or be catholic himself or allow for his children to be catholic. Just my opinion, I just think its embarrasing for a country like the UK to have this law in their books. It only adds fodder to republican views of how absurd the monarchy is. This should be put to rest once and for all bc it will come up again.
__________________

__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 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]