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
 
  #681  
Old 01-24-2010, 02:03 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
Ahh, so it may arise again when William marries and his wife is expecting.

If it hasn't already been changed by then it most certainly will be looked at at that time - whether they change it may very well await the outcome of the first pregnancy - if a son then leave it another generation.

The government do seem to try to avoid passing legislation about the royals and I think the royals like it like that as any legislation could lead to debates about the royal family in general rather than the specific issue at hand.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 04-09-2010, 06:38 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,202
Why did the British royal houses favor the Lutheran royal houses so much?

I've been wondering about something. I know that you (to this day!) can't inherit the British crown, if you're a Roman-Catholic, or even if you're married to a Roman-Catholic. So far so good, even though I don't understand why those laws haven't been changed by now. But isn't the Church of England "a bridge church" between the Roman-Catholic church and the Protestant churches? So why did the the British royal house only make marriage alliances with the Lutheran royal houses in northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden, if the Church of England is just as close to the Catholic church as to the Lutheran churches? Why did they never think of the many Catholic royal houses all over Europe? All of these Lutheran future queens of England had to join the Church of England, so couldn't a Catholic princess had done the same thing? Or is the Church of England really that much closer to the Lutherdom than to Roman-Catholicism? (I know it's considered as one of the Protestant churches, but like I said earlier, it's also called "a bridge church".) Do you have any thoughts about this?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 04-10-2010, 08:38 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,886
My first reaction to this question and I think probably the biggest reason of all to exclude the Roman Catholics is the Pope. Back then the Pope along with bishops and such carried a lot of political clout.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 04-10-2010, 09:28 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
why did the the British royal house only make marriage alliances with the Lutheran royal houses in northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden?
Under the Act of Settlement any person who marries a Roman Catholic automatically loses their place in the Line of Succession. Thus royal brides were sought from the Protestant Houses of Germany and Scandinavia who happened to be/are largely Lutheran or Evangelical. Other brides came from Russia and Greece (Orthodox).

A prospective bride who was Roman Catholic could convert to C of E prior to the wedding (as Autumn Phillips did) but such examples are very rare.
It is claimed the Duke of Clarence was engaged to Princess Hélčne d'Orléans who was said to have offered to defy her father (the French Pretender) and the Pope by renouncing Roman Catholicism and by joining the Church of England. However, it came to nothing.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 04-10-2010, 09:52 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,202
So I assume the answer to my question is, that the C of E still is closer to the Lutheran churches than to the Roman-Catholic church, even though it's been called "a bridge church". It was interesting to hear about Autumn Philips and Hélčne d'Orléans though.

But it's also interesting, that the Russian tsar family, which was Orthodox, also favored the Lutheran royal houses, when it came to marriage alliances.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #686  
Old 04-11-2010, 03:14 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,346
The problem is and was simple that catholic most of the time would not change their religion for a marriage but protestants di so it was easier for the Romaniovs to look for birdes in the porotestant houses. Although there was on marriager when Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna married Archduke Joseph.
__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 04-11-2010, 06:58 AM
MAfan's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: N/A, Italy
Posts: 4,345
Most of times Catholic Church didn't allow Catholic to marry Protestants or Orthodoxes or Anglicans unless they converted to the Catholic Church, or unless they raised the children as Catholic.
The last example coming to my mind is the marriage in 1948 of King Michael of Romania, Orthodox, to the Catholic Princess Anne of Bourbon-Parma; the Pope forbade her to marry him, because he stated that he would remain Orthodox and their children would raise as Orthodox (Romania's most followed religion). They could marry in a Catholic ceremony only in 1966.

The problem about the marriage of the Duke of Clarence and Princess Helene of Orleans was this one, they wanted to marry but the Pope (and the Count of Paris) forbade Helene to convert; and if I remember correctly, she was also considered as a possible bride for Tsarevic Nicholas of Russia, but this idea was soon left because of the religion problem.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 04-11-2010, 07:39 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,202
Okay. Thank you for the information. That was really interesting.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 07-02-2010, 04:23 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,123
Roman Catholic will not become king after monarchy reforms are abandoned | Mail Online

I didn't know where to put this, but it does have something to do with the church.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 07-04-2010, 06:48 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Derby, United Kingdom
Posts: 8
What is the heir to the throne became a Muslim?

The 1701 Act of Settlement bars Catholics, or anyone married to one, from becoming King or Queen. But what if the heir was Muslim or the heir married a muslim and raised a Muslim child? Does the act make mention of other faiths the future head of the Church of England is forbidden to marry? If not and a Muslim became monarch, what would happen to their role as Head of the Church of England?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 07-05-2010, 01:40 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
The monarch must be a protestant who is in communion with the Anglican Communion according to the Act of Settlement. That is actually specified along with the ban on being married to a Roman Catholic or being a Roman Catholic. Thus the monarch can't be any religion except Christian but also they can't profess the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity. Their spouse can be a Muslim however.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 07-05-2010, 03:30 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,778
The English/British monarch as Head of the Church of England and defender of that particular faith cannot be a Catholic. This is the law and is reasonable, especially when bearing in mind that the Pope, as head of the Catholic faith, cannot be anything other than a Catholic - nor for that matter be a woman! As such, I cannot fathom out why any Catholic should feel it unfair that a Catholic could never become the monarch of Great Britain.

It seems that practically every religion has it's leaders who in my opinion should at least practice the religion they are the leader of!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 07-09-2010, 01:19 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Delaware, United States
Posts: 3
Hypothetical Succession Question

Hi...been a lurker for about a year and have learned so much from all of you. Thank you!

I have been wondering about a hypothetical question, What if the Queen and Prince Phillip's children had all been female? How would succession be determined?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 07-09-2010, 01:25 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,123
Just like in the case of Her Majesty, The eldest daughter would have ascended the throne.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 07-09-2010, 02:35 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Delaware, United States
Posts: 3
Would new letters patent need to be issued to grant titles since these children would be descendants from the female line?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 07-09-2010, 02:47 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,123
I'm not entirely sure, but I do believe that certain Letters Patent were created for the present Queen's children. I'll have to check.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 07-09-2010, 05:17 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,340
Probably the oldest daughter. I'm not an expert on succession laws but I would think that this would be the case. If the daughter didn't have any children, then it would go to the second daughter, etc. This would be the case if Queen Elizabeth had all sons.

If the eldest daughter only had female children and the second daughter had two sons, who would they succeed her? It would be interesting to see what the answer to this would be. A legal document would have to be written to address this.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 07-09-2010, 05:24 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post

If the eldest daughter only had female children and the second daughter had two sons, who would they succeed her? It would be interesting to see what the answer to this would be. A legal document would have to be written to address this.
With Male primogenture, the eldest of the two sons would succed the eldest daughter.
Just like now Anne is elder than both Andrew and Edward yet she is last on the succesion list.

Say if Queen Elizabeth only had 4 girls, the eldest say Anne.
If Anne had 4 girls, the eldest would be her heir, until any son came along. If her younger sister had a son, he would become the heir. If Anne wanted to have her daughter succed her, she have to change it succesion to equal primogenture.
It is not eldest child in the UK, but Eldest Son.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 07-09-2010, 05:25 PM
windsorgirl's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 572
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarlucy View Post
Probably the oldest daughter. I'm not an expert on succession laws but I would think that this would be the case. If the daughter didn't have any children, then it would go to the second daughter, etc. This would be the case if Queen Elizabeth had all sons.

If the eldest daughter only had female children and the second daughter had two sons, who would they succeed her? It would be interesting to see what the answer to this would be. A legal document would have to be written to address this.
I'm not sure why a legal document would need to be written to address this issue. In this case, the eldest daughter would be the successor (heir presumptive?) and if she only had daughters, the eldest would succeed her. It wouldn't be the second daughter's sons. Like you, I'm not a real authority here, so I'd be interested to hear more, too.

Edit: I'm thinking of a scenario like if QEII had had only daughters but Princess Margaret only sons, the eldest daughter of QEII would be the heir presumptive, not the son of Margaret.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 07-09-2010, 05:36 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
If the eldest daughter had female children then her children would control the throne.

Elizabeth has Anne (and no Charles, Andrew or Edward or their heirs) and or a Alexandra (or more daughters). Then Anne becomes Queen. Anne has two children (Peter and Zara). Peter becomes King, his heirs, then Zara and her heirs.

If Anne had two daughters (say a Zara and a Phillipa), then eldest daughter Zara only had daughters but they are still ahead of the younger daughter Phillipa and her successors. So if Anne's younger daughter Phillipa had a son, he would be behind his mother the Queen, Aunt Zara, her daughters (and their kids) but he would jump ahead of any of his sisters.

Think of Queen Mary II and Anne. They both died without surviving heirs. The throne went to the heirs of the Electress Sophia, who was the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter of James I of England. So the House of Stuart:

James I > Charles I > Charles II > James II > Mary II > Anne II end of the House of Stuart because Anne has no living heirs

James I was the father of Charles I and Elizabeth who was the mother of Sophia, whose son became George I and so started the House of Hanover

I hope I got the names and placement right but that is the general idea. Its important to note that just because you have sons (you don't jump head of people). Thus the current Edward, Duke of Kent or the late Prince William of Gloucester did not jump ahead of Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret when they were born.
__________________

__________________
.

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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton 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 pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 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]