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
 
  #661  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:11 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Perhaps some of you are better versed in this than I am. Did Parliament ever grant the monarch the title "Defender of the Faith"? I thought this title was awarded to Henry VIII by the Pope in recognition of his defense of the Catholic Church. And Henry didn't relinquish it once he decided to break with Rome (in Henry's eyes he was not in the wrong and he was still defending the faith).
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #662  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:28 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410
Yes, it was a papal title bestowed on the King.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #663  
Old 01-21-2010, 01:40 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,133
I agree they should change the the succesion laws for both the crown and the titles.
But I think bringing the EU in is nonsense.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #664  
Old 01-21-2010, 03:19 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
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.
Thank you for the explanation, Warren! From common sense I still find it an odd or contradictorily law that a spouse is allowed to convert to Catholicism whereas a member of the family looses his place in the line of succession when he marries a Catholic...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #665  
Old 01-21-2010, 04:29 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410

In practical terms let's assume a King took the throne. His wife, allied to some ruthless and unscrupulous politicians (imagine!) converts to Roman Catholicism. Under a wider interpretation of the Act of Settlement the King would be immediately disqualified from holding the Crown and become legally "dead". His successor would then become King.

Obviously such a situation would be untenable as a resentful or ambitious or embittered spouse could topple a monarch at any time by a quick dash to a priest.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #666  
Old 01-21-2010, 05:32 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Yes, this example makes it more understandable for me. What I only did mean (sorry, if my thoughts can be a bit confusing) was that I find it in some way a bit inconsequent that it isn't allowed to marry Catholics, but it is allowed for the spouses to convert to Catholicism during the marriage and it doesn't touch the other spouse. Not that I would find it bad when someone converts or that I would wish the other marriage partner would lose his place in the line of succession then, but if it is such a big deal that you lose your place in the line of succession when marrying a Catholic, I'm a bit surprised that it doesn't lead to consequences when a member of the Royal Family is married to a Catholic after the spouse converts during the marriage. Do you get, what I mean? It just confuses me a bit... Your example made it clearer to me why it is practised that way, but I still find it a bit unfair for the others.
And I'm sorry that I cannot express myself clearer at the moment.

However, for a peaceful world I would wish that religion would become a personal thing for everyone and that no-one should be judged or discriminated because of creed, colour or gender. I know it is a different and difficult situation with the King or Queen of Great Britain as they are the head of church. But as long as it is hypothetically not forbidden to marry Hindhu's, Muslims, Jews etc. I would be happy if they would find a solution for the "Catholic-problem" as well. Just my two cents.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #667  
Old 01-21-2010, 06:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
Yes, it was a papal title bestowed on the King.

It was originally bestowed in 1521 but was removed by the Pope in 1530 after Henry broke with Rome.

In 1544 the Parliament re-created the title so the current title is a creation of the English Parliament (and yes I mean English Parliament as it pre-dates the Union of the Crowns). It wasn't used during the Protectorate by the Cromwells but has been used by every monarch since Henry, including Mary I, who of course used it to Defend the Roman Catholic faith, while all other monarchs have used it to defend the Anglican faith. The only one of HM's realms that also include the title are the UK, NZ and Canada (where in 1953 the following comment was made:
The rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words, "Defender of the Faith". In England there is an established church. In our countries [the other monarchies of the Commonwealth] there are no established churches, but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an all-wise providence, and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organisation is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.
óLouis St Laurent


__________________
Reply With Quote
  #668  
Old 01-22-2010, 12:11 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
I never knew Parliament re-bestowed the title upon the monarch after the Pope revoked it. I had simply assumed that the sovereign continued to assert the title in the list of royal styles. Ironically, Pope Leo X, according to Jasper Ridley, told Henry that should anyone attempt to deprive him of the title, 'such a person would incur the indignation of Almighty God and of the holy Apostles, Peter and Paul."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #669  
Old 01-22-2010, 02:00 AM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Thank you, Iluvbertie. You answered my question very nicely.

I did quite a bit of graduate work on the Tudors and Stuarts, and we had to study the background of the Act of Settlement. My guess is that the writers never considered that their royals might stop marrying other royals (you'd get the occasional rare marriage of a royal to someone like Anne Hyde but it would have been rare ). It would be pretty easy to figure out that a Hapsburg or a Bourbon would be an ineligible mate for a British royal, so those were the groups that the Act was really intended to target.

Today's situation with the likes of April Kelley or Mrs. Trowbridge wouldn't have been dreamed of.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #670  
Old 01-22-2010, 02:24 AM
DuedePhiladelphia's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elise,LadyofLancaster View Post
Line of Succession

1 Prince Charles, Prince of Wales (b 1948)
2 Prince William of Wales (b 1982)
3 Prince Henry of Wales (b 1984)
4 Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b 1960)
5 Princess Beatrice of York (b 1988)
6 Princess Eugenie of York (b 1990)
7 Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b 1964)
so, Prince Edward isnt ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie because of his gender?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #671  
Old 01-22-2010, 03:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuedePhiladelphia View Post
so, Prince Edward isnt ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie because of his gender?
No because they are the daughters of his older brother but he is ahead of his sister Anne, because of his gender.

The Queen has four children, in order of birth - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward. However, both Andrew and Edward are ahead of Anne due to the gender issue.

Once into the Queen's grandchildren they take their claim through their respective royal parent so Charles' sons before Andrew and then Andrew's daughters and then Edward, with James ahead of his older sister Louise and then Anne and her two children.

If the succession from the Queen was gender neutral it would be:

Charles
William
Harry
Anne
Peter
Zara
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
Louise
James

If you compare this list to the actual list of

Charles
William
Harry
Andrew
Beatrice
Eugenie
Edward
James
Louise
Anne
Peter
Zara

it is easy to see the effect of the gender rules as Anne and her children are currently at 10, 11 and 12 rather than 4, 5 and 6 where they would be if it was gender neutral from the Queen and Edward's son wouldn't come ahead of Louise so Louise instead of being 9th as now would actually be 11th with James at 12th. Gender neutral wouldn't affect the first three but after that it would change considerably.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #672  
Old 01-22-2010, 05:22 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,356
In this way, the Earl of Harewood, his descendants and the descendants of his late brother would go ahead of the Duke of Gloucester. Am I right?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #673  
Old 01-22-2010, 05:41 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,410

Mary, Princess Royal, Countess of Harewood was born in 1897.
Under equal primogeniture she and her descendants would have been ahead of her younger brothers Henry, Duke of Gloucester (born 1900), George, Duke of Kent (1902) and Prince John (1905) but behind her elder brothers Edward (1894) and Albert (1895).
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #674  
Old 01-22-2010, 08:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAfan View Post
In this way, the Earl of Harewood, his descendants and the descendants of his late brother would go ahead of the Duke of Gloucester. Am I right?

If it had existed at the time of her birth certainly but it is highly doubtful if they would make it retroactive that far back.

How far back would you take it - e.g. in Victoria's children the German royal family would have to come before the present British line as they are descended from Victoria's first born child - a girl.

If, and when, they change it it will be effective probably from William's children rather than change the existing order of things so that if William has a girl first and then a boy the girl won't suddenly be downgraded to 2nd behind her father but remain his heir.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #675  
Old 01-22-2010, 09:45 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,356
That's what I wand to understand: would this changes be retroactive, or would they regard only the descendants of the present Queen?
Even if they made it retroactive starting with Edward VII nothing would change, since the last woman skipped in favour of a man was Empress Frederick, the Princess Royal Victoria in favour of Edward VII.
So, it would not be a problem if the descendants of Princess Mary, the Princess Royal, would be placed before the Gloucesters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #676  
Old 01-22-2010, 04:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Any time I have seen it discussed is for it to happen in the future rather than retroactively i.e. from William's children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #677  
Old 01-22-2010, 05:45 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Any time I have seen it discussed is for it to happen in the future rather than retroactively i.e. from William's children.
Thats what I always assumed.
As in Norways case, it was from Haakons children onwards. And not extended to Martha-Louise.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #678  
Old 01-23-2010, 01:08 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
There is no doubt that any change would be prospective and not retroactive. The latter would cause a lot of confusion. Sweden made the change after Victoria and her younger brother were born and his place in the line of succession became subordinate to Victoria's. Perhaps the change may come and affect William's children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #679  
Old 01-23-2010, 02:52 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
They did discuss it when Diana was pregnant with William but once he was born there was no need so it was put in the 'not necessary at the moment basket'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #680  
Old 01-23-2010, 11:07 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Ahh, so it may arise again when William marries and his wife is expecting.
__________________

__________________
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 engagement fashion 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 poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola 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 06:47 PM.

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]