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
 
  #721  
Old 01-23-2011, 05:04 AM
Stefan's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Esslingen, Germany
Posts: 2,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I think the point that Stefan made is that because Lord Nicholas Windsor married a Catholic he is no longer in the line of succession and his children don't come into it at all. But the webpage obviously still list him...
Yes exactly. Should have made my point clear.
__________________

__________________
Stefan

Royal Travel and Events

Reply With Quote
  #722  
Old 01-23-2011, 11:38 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 3,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I think the point that Stefan made is that because Lord Nicholas Windsor married a Catholic he is no longer in the line of succession and his children don't come into it at all. But the webpage obviously still list him...
Ahhh.. that makes perfect sense to me now. I made that post early in the morning and its obvious that I didn't have enough coffee in me yet.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #723  
Old 01-24-2011, 01:16 AM
purple_Lulu's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esmerelda View Post
Were the sons baptized Catholic? If not, they would still be in the line of succession even though Nicolas is not because of his marriage.
Lord Nicholas Windsor was excluded from the succession even before his marriage on account of his own conversion to Roman Catholicism.

The Hon. Albert Windsor was initially excluded following his RC baptism, however there followed some debate as to whether infant baptism actually constituted the individual concerned "professing the popish religion" (which is what the Act of Succession excludes.)

It appears that the wisdom is that it doesn't and Albert & Leopold maintain their places in the succession, until such a time as they receive RC confirmation (like their cousins Baron Downpatrick & Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #724  
Old 01-24-2011, 02:47 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Depending on family traditions this can be very early: I was only nine when I received the confirmation which is meant for much older kids, so couldn't really follow the teachings that are before the ceremony. On reaching the religious maturity age in Germany (that's 14) I left the RC church because of the gender discrimination.

So I personally would prefer to wait for the age of religious maturity in Britain and see if the Royal child then decides to change to the CoE.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #725  
Old 01-24-2011, 04:11 AM
purple_Lulu's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 68
If a person hasn't the maturity to profess a faith as their own, then they shouldn't receive the sacrament of confirmation in that faith.

Baron Downpatrick was 15 and Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor was 16 when they were confirmed into their mother's faith. Lady Amelia Windsor is presently 15 and apparently hasn't been confirmed as a Roman Catholic (as she is still listed in the order of succession.)

As both Albert & Leopold's parents are RCs, then it makes a certain amount of sense that they will in time be confirmed in that faith. But as that will be their choice when they have the necessary maturity, it's good to see that they have the "benefit of the doubt" of remaining in the order of succession in the meantime.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #726  
Old 01-29-2011, 01:41 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
At the risk of re-hashing ground already covered above (I just joined today), I think it will be virtually impossible to change the rules of succession and keep the crown linked with all 16 realms.

While the U.K. with an unwritten constitution can (relatively) easily pass a new law that updates the succession rules for the U.K., all other realms have to update their laws/constitutions in the same way if (under the Statute of Westminster), the crown is to stay linked.

I don't know about all the realms, but in Canada, constitutional change is virtually impossible. The institution of the monarchy is entrenched and can only be altered by Act of Parliament and ratification by all 10 provinces. They haven't even been able to change some (minor) things when (all) they needed was 7 provinces' support.

We could end up with a different monarch (or even a republic) in Britain while Canada still follows the Act of Settlement.

Imagine King William V of Canada meeting President Tony Blair of the United States of Britain!
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #727  
Old 01-29-2011, 11:48 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Thanks for bringing up those ideas. I never thought about that. That would certainly create a unique situation in regards to equal inheritance rights especially if a new monarch came down to a sister/brother combination.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #728  
Old 01-30-2011, 05:10 PM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by jemagre View Post
Thanks for bringing up those ideas. I never thought about that. That would certainly create a unique situation in regards to equal inheritance rights especially if a new monarch came down to a sister/brother combination.
Indeed. If William and Kate have a girl followed by a boy and the U.K. changes the succession so the crown goes to the first born, regardless of gender, then we'd have an in interesting scenario. Would the Queen of U.K.'s little brother, the King of Canada, move his court to Ottawa?

Intriguing stuff.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #729  
Old 01-30-2011, 08:37 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
I don't know about all the realms, but in Canada, constitutional change is virtually impossible. The institution of the monarchy is entrenched and can only be altered by Act of Parliament and ratification by all 10 provinces. They haven't even been able to change some (minor) things when (all) they needed was 7 provinces' support.
It's never been formally established that changing succession would have to go through the constitutional amendment process in Canada. It's certainly a possibility, but it's not a certainty (the only case establishing that the succession laws are a part of the constitution was a provincial case that's not binding on higher courts), and unless the federal government submitted a reference question to the Supreme Court, it's not likely that there's anybody with the standing to challenge such a change in court (except perhaps for a younger brother of a future Queen regnant).
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #730  
Old 02-01-2011, 01:36 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
Indeed. If William and Kate have a girl followed by a boy and the U.K. changes the succession so the crown goes to the first born, regardless of gender, then we'd have an in interesting scenario. Would the Queen of U.K.'s little brother, the King of Canada, move his court to Ottawa?

Intriguing stuff.
I know that is exactly what I was thinking when I read the posts regarding constitutional changes in other countries. I wonder if the constitutions of other countries are taken into account when making these decisions. I know that officially the Queen rules all of her countries equally but in regards of succession is it primarily a British issue? Does anyone know if the British government would consult other countries when bringing up this topic?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #731  
Old 02-01-2011, 01:50 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
The Queen doesn't 'rule' any country. She 'reigns'. A person who 'rules' is one who actually has power and can make decisions. The Queen has no power.
From my understanding it is essentially a British issue but the other countries will be consulted, and if necessary will even vote on the decision as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #732  
Old 02-01-2011, 02:05 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The Queen doesn't 'rule' any country. She 'reigns'. A person who 'rules' is one who actually has power and can make decisions. The Queen has no power.

From my understanding it is essentially a British issue but the other countries will be consulted, and if necessary will even vote on the decision as well.
My apology reigns is the correct term.

Thanks for the clarification on the other countries participation. It would quite weird if the decision was taken unilaterally.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #733  
Old 02-01-2011, 09:49 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
From my understanding it is essentially a British issue but the other countries will be consulted, and if necessary will even vote on the decision as well.
From what I understand, the 1931 Statute of Westminster (which gave the Dominions of the Empire their independence) serves basically like a treaty between independent nations now.

In terms of the crown, the nations agree to consult with one another and act in concert when changing the rules for succession. But if one or more does not agree and changes (or does not change) the rules so that they are diffferent in different realms, then that's legal. It's just that the crown would longer be unified. There would be separate crowns with separate rules of succession (and thus quite possibly different monarchs) in the different realms.

I don't know much of international law so I don't know the ramifications of breaking a treaty or if the Statute is more of an informal agreement of understanding.

As far as individual realms are concerned, they are independent countries and so can make their own laws regarding the succession of their sovereign; I just don't know how the international law plays into this.

I'm happy to be enlightened as always.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #734  
Old 02-02-2011, 01:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: everywhere, United States
Posts: 566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Leaside View Post
From what I understand, the 1931 Statute of Westminster (which gave the Dominions of the Empire their independence) serves basically like a treaty between independent nations now.

In terms of the crown, the nations agree to consult with one another and act in concert when changing the rules for succession. But if one or more does not agree and changes (or does not change) the rules so that they are diffferent in different realms, then that's legal. It's just that the crown would longer be unified. There would be separate crowns with separate rules of succession (and thus quite possibly different monarchs) in the different realms.

I don't know much of international law so I don't know the ramifications of breaking a treaty or if the Statute is more of an informal agreement of understanding.

As far as individual realms are concerned, they are independent countries and so can make their own laws regarding the succession of their sovereign; I just don't know how the international law plays into this.

I'm happy to be enlightened as always.
Thanks for all the continuing information. I can't imagine seeing the royal family break apart over a succession issue if another country doesn't change the laws but I could be wrong. Then again I could see a country decide that changing the laws is too lengthy of a process and avoid it all together. After all some countries may not believe that they should take time to consider the issue.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #735  
Old 04-24-2011, 08:35 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
Church blocks reforms over royal marriages - Telegraph

The Church of England has told the government that reforming the Act of Settlement over the issue of Roman Catholics is not on.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #736  
Old 04-25-2011, 05:11 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,218
I still don't see the problem with a heir to the British thrown marrying a Catholic. And since it's the only faith, that's targeted by the law, I can really understand how people can be upset by it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #737  
Old 04-25-2011, 05:55 AM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna
I still don't see the problem with a heir to the British thrown marrying a Catholic. And since it's the only faith, that's targeted by the law, I can really understand how people can be upset by it.
It says in the article that Canon Law (which I presume is Catholic law) requires the children to be brought up as Catholic, which could lead to a conflict of interest. Although in Orthodox Judaism, for example, the children of a Jewish mother are automatically Jewish and there isn't a rule against an heir marrying a Jew.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #738  
Old 04-25-2011, 07:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
I still don't see the problem with a heir to the British thrown marrying a Catholic. And since it's the only faith, that's targeted by the law, I can really understand how people can be upset by it.

Remember that that heir is not only heir to throne but also to the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and thus their spouse being a Roman Catholic and insisting on the children being raised as Roman Catholics would then see the Supreme Governor of the Church of England owing allegiance to the Pope.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #739  
Old 04-25-2011, 04:25 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
I guess it depends how strictly the Catholic parent adheres to Canon Law. Princess Maxima is a Catholic and wasn't required to convert when she married. The little Princesses are being raised as Protestants. However, I'm not sure if the monarch is head of the church in the Netherlands. Anyone know?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #740  
Old 04-25-2011, 05:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Church blocks reforms over royal marriages - Telegraph

The Church of England has told the government that reforming the Act of Settlement over the issue of Roman Catholics is not on.
In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.
__________________

__________________
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 carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:31 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]