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
 
  #641  
Old 12-03-2009, 12:01 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post

And Princejohnny (not to be mean) but just because something works in the Netherlands doesn't necessarily mean it will work in the United Kingdom.
No meaness taken. :) But I disagree, it is only the monarchs religion that matters as the head of the church. As long as the monarch is an Anglican, it wouldn't matter for the rest of the royal family. And I don't see britons having a real problem with the heir marrying a non-anglican. Religion, from my experience with britons, seems to not really matter that much.

haha, how is elspeth these days? enjoying her TRF retierment?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #642  
Old 12-03-2009, 12:07 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,367
Elspeth is Great! Enjoying her retirement.

Yes, the religion of the monarch is important. But here is another question...would a Catholic Queen Consort to Anglican Monarch, allow her children to be raised in the Anglican faith? Would the Catholic Church (not that we are all speaking on behalf of the church) allow such a thing to happen?
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #643  
Old 12-03-2009, 12:26 AM
Princejohnny25's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: , Antarctica
Posts: 2,033
Well, traditionally, children are supposed to be raised in the faith of the mother. But precedent has been set amongst royals in the past century regarding religion. To bring up the Dutch again, Maxima is a catholic but her kids are not. So I don't think the church has a real problem with that. Or at least are not and probably can not be vocal about it.

Then there is the Luxembourg royals. A few Grand Dukes/Duchess back, a Grand Duke married a Catholic bride. They decided that all their sons would be protestants and all their daughters would be Catholics. Since they didn't have any sons, their daughters would become Grand Duchess's and hence why the royal family is today Catholic.

But I think they will "officially" remove any stance saying Catholics are not allowed to marry into the RF but they will "unofficially" insist on future brides/grooms converting. Similar to other royal houses. Well, as long as the monarch is head of the church, i think that's how it will be. Also, I think anybody marrying in the royal family and does not want to convert, would have to come to an agreement to allow the children to be raised Anglicans before a marriage could take place.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #644  
Old 12-03-2009, 02:19 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
I agree about how the monarch does not really have a role in the Church in the 21st Century. When Prince Charles becomes 'Defender of Faith' ( as he plans to) upon his ascension, I think is when a real push will be made for the rules regarding Catholics to be changed.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #645  
Old 12-03-2009, 02:23 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,679
Charles said that he would like to be 'Defender of Faith' but it isn't up to him as the titlethat was granted by Parliament was 'Defender of the Faith' and that title will automatically become Charles' when he becomes King. To change it will take an Act of Parliament and that raises the entire issue of debating royal titles and just where that might end up.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #646  
Old 12-03-2009, 02:25 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
I'm all for represenative democracy, but I'm starting to see why some monarchs tried to skip Parliament all together. So much technicalities just to change one or two words in a title!!!!
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #647  
Old 12-03-2009, 02:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,679
But that word 'the' has such an incredible meaning in the title as it identifies the fact that their is ONE official faith whereas taking it out implies multiple faiths are acceptable.
Now to you and I that maybe the case but to some people that isn't the case and the RF have to be very careful about what they ask Parliament to legislate on or they could see themselves legislated out of a job.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #648  
Old 12-03-2009, 10:03 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,533
They would have to change the Coronation Oath. The 1689 Coronation Act requires he would have to swear to 'maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law'. Also, there's the whole are Charles and Camilla in good standing with the CoE, should APB still be alive at the time of QEII's death.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #649  
Old 12-03-2009, 11:59 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom
Posts: 46
Do you think the church of england will still be an important part of peoples lives in Britain in 20 or 30 years. Congregations are already in decline, I think any move by the prince to represent all faiths could be incorporated in some way, because there is talk of changing the succession laws to not exclude catholics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #650  
Old 12-03-2009, 04:12 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,679
In my opinion Charles and Camilla are in good standing with the CofE since the Archbishop of Canterbury blessed their marriage. I would suggest that without that blessing there might have been a problem but with that blessing - a very public display that the CofE supported the marriage - it would be hard to turn around and raise questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicki J View Post
Do you think the church of england will still be an important part of peoples lives in Britain in 20 or 30 years. Congregations are already in decline, I think any move by the prince to represent all faiths could be incorporated in some way, because there is talk of changing the succession laws to not exclude catholics.
I think that as long as the CofE is an established Church and that the monarch is the Supreme Governor of that Church, which Charles will be on the day of his accession, it won't be possible to do much with the oath. I understand that the Queen takes very seriously her role as Supreme Governor and her Coronation Oath so it is doubtful if during the rest of her reign she would really support a change in that oath to allow her son to take a different one.

I would like to point out that Charles takes the oath on the day of Accession and repeats it at the Coronation so there is no time for the oath to be changed before he has to take it as it is taken within hours of his accession which means that he would therefore have to push to have it changed from the one he takes on accession day to the one he takes a year or so later on Coronation Day.

I think it more likely that Charles will push to get it changed for William just as Edward VII had it changed for George V.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #651  
Old 12-04-2009, 02:51 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Gloucester, United Kingdom
Posts: 46
Thanks for the explanation. I hope some solution can be found to accommodate the princes wishes, for himself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #652  
Old 01-18-2010, 05:41 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Discrimination has no place in the British state

Quote:
British laws on succession and royal marriages discriminate against both women and Roman Catholics, and probably breach the European Convention on Human Rights.
Discrimination has no place in the British state - Herald Scotland | Comment | Herald View
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #653  
Old 01-18-2010, 06:19 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189

Thats completely ridiculous.
I knew before time, that would be brought in.
The reason for this has been around longer than the EU. It should stay this way.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #654  
Old 01-18-2010, 07:28 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Only because the reason has been around longer doesn't make it better, IMO. Great Britain had admirable Queens, so why should a male child be preferred? I really think these laws are outdated.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #655  
Old 01-19-2010, 11:58 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
This poses some interesting questions. When we consider that a man is no better than a woman, which I firmly believe, than why should it be that the eldest son, even if he is the sixth child, inherits the throne from the monarch? Parliament in the past has created the order of succession. If it should choose to amend the law of succession, would this be any different than its past acts?

But then when you analogize the monarchy to a family run business, perhaps the monarch should choose his or her successor, just like the founder of the business chooses who gets to run it in the next generation?

I am a tradionalist and love the historical precedent of the British monarchy but in today's age, can we really insist that males predominate over females? As pointed out above, there have been wonderful Queens.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #656  
Old 01-20-2010, 01:18 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,679
I would go further and say that the eldest child, regardless of gender, should be able to inherit all titles e.g. I find it extremely unfair that Beatrice could become Queen but she can't inherit her father's dukedom just because she is female and that Louise also could be Queen but no inherit her father's titles or even worse, if they change the succession to the monarchy to gender blind she remains able to be Queen ahead of her brother so that if the awful happened she could be Queen but her father's titles wouldn't merge with the Crown but pass to her brother, because he is male.

If they change the succession laws to the monarchy they really need to change the succession laws to all titles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #657  
Old 01-20-2010, 01:22 AM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
But then when you analogize the monarchy to a family run business, perhaps the monarch should choose his or her successor, just like the founder of the business chooses who gets to run it in the next generation?
I once had a similar thought. But I think it really would depend on how wise and long-sighted the monarch would be who had to make this decision. I also think some of the decedents would feel betrayed and it would lead to many, well, let me say, discussions. I also think it could be seen as discriminatory whereas if the law of succession would include only the primogenital right - regardless of female or male gender - it could be seen at least as something like destiny.

Quote:
I am a tradionalist and love the historical precedent of the British monarchy but in today's age, can we really insist that males predominate over females? As pointed out above, there have been wonderful Queens.
I agree with you and I'm a traditionalist as well and I really respect and admire the British Monarchy, but the current laws are discriminatory, IMO. I can understand them in historical context, but nowadays it is discrimination, against woman and against religious freedom. I think it wouldn't hurt anyone to change these laws (correct me, if I'm wrong) if William will have children.

If I take Prince and Princess Michael of Kent for example: as their children were raised Anglican, why does it matter that the Princess stayed catholic? edit: I know that it would be difficult with the heir to the throne, as a King or Queen also is the head of church. But then again, if William would marry a Catholic (and as he is allowed to marry a Muslim, Hindhu or whatever) would it be that difficult if his woman would stay Catholic if their children would be raised Anglican? I'm just asking.

And what about the argumentum e contrario? The Duke of Kent's wife converted to Catholicism during her marriage. So, the Duke of Kent is now married to a Catholic and still ranks in the line of succession, whereas his brother lost his place because he married a Catholic?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #658  
Old 01-20-2010, 01:27 AM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I would go further and say that the eldest child, regardless of gender, should be able to inherit all titles e.g. I find it extremely unfair that Beatrice could become Queen but she can't inherit her father's dukedom just because she is female and that Louise also could be Queen but no inherit her father's titles or even worse, if they change the succession to the monarchy to gender blind she remains able to be Queen ahead of her brother so that if the awful happened she could be Queen but her father's titles wouldn't merge with the Crown but pass to her brother, because he is male.

If they change the succession laws to the monarchy they really need to change the succession laws to all titles.
Very good examples, Iluvbertie. I agree with you 100 %.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #659  
Old 01-21-2010, 12:00 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Excellent points, Iluvbertie, I did not even consider the lapsing of titles when there is no male heir! It does appear to be incongruous that some of the Queen's granddaughters could become Queen but not inherit their father's titles. If the rules concerning succession to the throne are changed, I believe you are right that all rules of succession will have to change as well. That could open the possibility that these royal dukedoms will continue for a very long time because having daughters will not end the line.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #660  
Old 01-21-2010, 10:23 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dierna23 View Post
And what about the argumentum e contrario? The Duke of Kent's wife converted to Catholicism during her marriage. So, the Duke of Kent is now married to a Catholic and still ranks in the line of succession, whereas his brother lost his place because he married a Catholic?
It gets down to the wording of the Act of Settlement. Parliament's intent was clear; the expression used is "or marry a papist". The Duke of Kent did not marry a Roman Catholic; Prince Michael did. The Parliamentarians, being themselves familiar with the uses and misuses of power, may have forseen the possibility of an embittered or politically-driven spouse converting to Catholicism purely to disqualify their partner from the Line of Succession or even to topple the reigning monarch. Thus the later conversion of a spouse to Catholicism was not enacted as a disqualifying event for the non-Catholic partner.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
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





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:14 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]