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
 
  #761  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:15 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
So back in 1701 this law made sense.
Back in 1701, maybe it did. But it doesn't now in 2011.

And even the arguement of "the child of a Catholic parent won't be able to be the head of the Anglican church" doesn't hold water, as was proven here in Sweden already back in the 19th century. Because the first two queens of the current Bernadotte dynasty, Desirée Clary and Josephine of Leuchtenberg, were both allowed to keep their Catholic faith. And this was at a time, when Catholicism hardly was that popular around here, so it was controversial (the Norwegian archbishop even refused to coronate queen Josephine, even though the royal family of Sweden at the time also was the royal family of Norway). But as long the heirs themselves were Lutherans, and as long as their spouses came from some royal family, it didn't seem to matter what a spouse's faith was. And neither Desirée's son Oscar (king Oscar I) or any of Josephine's five children (out of whom two, Carl XV and Oscar II, became kings) became Catholic. And I also wonder, if our current queen Silvia didn't have a partially Catholic upbringing, considering that her mother was Brazilian.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #762  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Church affiliation is still very important, not only amongst royals, but in regular families as well. I would like to know the inside story of Kate's confirmation into the CofE at such a late age (week before last or last week). Anyone know if she was just unchurched or of another religion?

She was baptised but like a lot of other children didn't decide to get confimred as a teenager.

I teach at an Anglican school here and we do ask to see the baptismal certificate of students at enrolment (we don't stop them enrolling but we do have a preference for those that have been baptised - and yes that is legal here - our order of taking students is - children of Anglican ministers, children who regularly attend the local parish church, children who regularly attend other local churches, children baptised into Christian churches, other children.

If all the baptised Anglicans were confirmed at about 13/14 we would have over 50 kids get confirmed each year but we usually end up with about 8 - 10 as the others simply chose not to get confirmed. Kate, I think fell into that sort of category - decided that her faith wasn't there, saw no reason to do so etc but now, as the wife of the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England felt that it was the right thing to do.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #763  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:44 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,222
I know most Catholics aren't affected by it, but still, like you say, it's one of those silly, archaic laws, that might have made sense hundreds of years ago, but doesn't today. The worst thing about this law is, that no other religious group is forbidden to marry into the royal family. I know this has historical reasons (three hundred years ago, it was considerably more likely, that a British royal would married a Catholic than, say, a Jew or a Muslim), but still, some laws just shouldn't be around anymore. However, if Kate had to become confirmed to be able to marry William, I guess a Jewish or Muslim girl would have been expected to convert to the Anglican church as well, even though no law would have made her do so.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #764  
Old 04-28-2011, 03:35 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,243
Prince William Might Be Second in Line to the British Crown, but Karin Vogel, at No. 4,973, Still Has a Shot - WSJ.com

Karin Vogel wakes up in this graffiti-pocked east German city and drives to the hospital where she is a therapist who counsels elderly people in chronic pain.

If a few thousand people would just disappear, Ms. Vogel would be leading a far more enchanting life. She would be the queen of England.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #765  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:25 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Ye Olde Body Piercing Shoppe, United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Succession Hypothetical

Suppose that in 12 months time Prince William was King and Catherine was 5 months pregnant with a son. In some unfortunate situation William dies. Does Harry become King or does the unborn child have some claim to the throne?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #766  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:34 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prince Albert View Post
Suppose that in 12 months time Prince William was King and Catherine was 5 months pregnant with a son. In some unfortunate situation William dies. Does Harry become King or does the unborn child have some claim to the throne?
It wouldn't matter if it was a son or daughter - child is enough. Unborn children have no right to the throne. Thus Harry would become king, but would surely listen to political advice if he should abdicate for the child either on his/her birth or when the child turn 18. IIRC the child would come before any of Harrys in the line of succession. You find more infos about this in the "line of succession"-thread.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #767  
Old 04-28-2011, 08:45 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Didn't Queen Victoria have the same situation--I think there was a LP or an Act of Parliament regarding Queen Victoria ascending the Throne--that if her uncle, King William IV pass away and his wife was carrying a baby at that time, that the baby would ascend to the Throne upon birth and the Queen would act as Regent until the baby turn 18?

In any case, as it stands now, baby being carried doesn't have any claim to the Throne until born. Hence if King William V pass away before Catherine give birth, then Harry will become King and stay King even after the birth. If the baby was born before King William pass away, then Harry would become the Regent (and maybe Catherine as Co-Regent, but I'm not sure), until the baby turn 18.

I highly doubt Harry would be advised to abdicate, as the child would NOT be in the line of succession anyway, unless a special Act of Parliament is passed, and that in turn would be fraught with unintended consequences, just like trying to change the rules on succession and religion exclusion. Also abdication is something the Royal Family really dislike, due to past experience.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #768  
Old 04-28-2011, 10:07 AM
EmpressRouge's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,294
Wow, that is different from other monarchies. There were only two people in history that I know of where a widow is carrying the potential heir apparent, the son was became king at birth: John I (the Posthumous) of France, who only lived and was king for 5 days, and was succeeded by the previous heir, his uncle Philip V; and Alfonso XIII of Spain, whose eldest sister would have become Queen if he had been a girl.

But I guess the situation in Britain is different and I learned something new.
__________________
Real princesses always wear sleeves so why do we all go for strapless?
Reply With Quote
  #769  
Old 04-29-2011, 10:35 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,222
Wow... And there are still only three heirs to the Swedish thrown.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #770  
Old 05-01-2011, 06:32 PM
Andrew_Goodchild's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Felixstowe, United Kingdom
Posts: 38
A rather morbid question...

Hi Guys, been a long-time member but only ever been a lurker.

I have been a long time follower of our wonderful monarchy and I am usually the font of knowledge amoungst friends of mine when it comes to past Kings and Queens and the future of the institution but today I was stumped by a question and I hope someone could answer it as you all know much more than me. (Apologies if I posted this in the wrong section although it does relate to the Duke of Cambridge.)

God forbid this happens but if we lost Her Majesty, The Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge then obviously Harry would become Henry IX (presumably) However if this happened whilst The Duchess of Cambridge was pregnant but before the heir was born who would be the rightful monarch?

The question that follows onto this would be that if it was Harry who was crowned would the child of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge become the heir presumptive or would any future children of Harry go above them in the order of succession?

Again apologies for the rather morbid question but it one that has puzzled me since I was asked.

Thanks
Andy
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #771  
Old 05-01-2011, 06:34 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 27
Good question! I'm interested to hear what the more knowledgeable forum members have to say.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #772  
Old 05-01-2011, 06:43 PM
Thain's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 20
The child would be the rightful monarch. Harry would be regent until the child's birth and after, until the child came of age. If the child did not come to term or did not survive, then Harry would be King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #773  
Old 05-01-2011, 06:46 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
If William dies before his father but while Catherine is pregnant or their eldest child is a minor, that child will be heir after Charles. What will happen is the same thing that was proposed during William IV's illness when his heir Victoria was under 18; a regency. Catherine as the child's mother would be regent, probably with Harry, until the child is 18, at which time he/she will then be crowned.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #774  
Old 05-01-2011, 06:46 PM
Parrothead's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 226
If the Duchess was pregnant at the time of All of the aboves death, then upon birth, the child would become monarch with a regency until he or she comes of age. One would assume that the child's uncle, prince Harry would be regent, but that would have to be decided at the time of birth or prior.

Any child the Cambridge's have will bump Harry down the line of succession.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #775  
Old 05-01-2011, 06:59 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,243
As far as I know, a fetus cannot become the monarch and is not legally classified as a person capable of holding any position until birth. Harry would become the King immediately upon such a mass death. However, what would happen upon the birth of the child is much less clear. It's entirely possible that Harry would immediately cease to be the King and the throne would pass to the newly-born child. Under the terms of the Regency Acts, Harry would be the regent for such a child monarch.

In the 1830s, this is what was planned in the event that King William IV had died leaving behind a pregnant Queen Adelaide. Victoria would have immediately become Queen, and she would have stopped being the Queen upon the birth of the child. The only question is whether the law passed to deal with the possibility was simply clarifying what would have happened anyways or if the law created a special exception to the normal rules of succession.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #776  
Old 05-01-2011, 07:13 PM
Andrew_Goodchild's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Felixstowe, United Kingdom
Posts: 38
Very interesting, thanks for the responses.

I did assume that common sense would prevail in a situation like the above and he would be Prince Regent until the child reached 18.

Would the same be the case if say they were unaware of any pregnancy, and Harry was already declared as the king?

Obviously these are all hypothetical situations and one I hope that never materialise .
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 05-01-2011, 07:16 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,243
Well, since it's never happened before, there isn't really a lot else to go off of. The reliance on unwritten convention and common law means that extraordinary circumstances tend to result in them making things up as they go along, to put it bluntly. There might not be a definite answer until it actually happens.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 05-01-2011, 07:55 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
I don't see how any such thing as Andrew's scenario could ever take place.

So, Prince William impregnates the Duchess and dies within 10-14 days? Because these days, that's about when most young women of Kate's age and status find out they're pregnant. They're usually aware that they're not using birth control and trying to get pregnant - and pretty excited to know the instant it happens.

At any rate, one of the first things Kate would think to do, if she had any reason to believe she was pregnant (there are signs) is to get tested, if she wasn't already tested anyway.

There's no way a Coronation could occur before a Funeral. The shocking circumstances of such a death would probably mean at least a week before a Funeral - and who knows how long before Coronation?

So, the new question is particularly morbid, because it asks one to speak about the details of a future death - rather than in terms of just succession. The family would have the usual advice about what to do in these instances - just as any family in their position would have.

I hope that's enough speculation about this topic, now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 05-01-2011, 08:14 PM
Andrew_Goodchild's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Felixstowe, United Kingdom
Posts: 38
I realise the situation I posed was one of the most unlikely thing that could ever happen, especially in this modern time.

I think the question I was trying to get answered was that in the event that a new monarch was proclaimed before such a birth happened (either one that we were aware was on the way or not) Would that monarch have any obligation to pass the crown over to the person who, if born earlier would have became king/queen.

Apologies if I offended anyone with the previous question
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 05-01-2011, 09:35 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,597
If William was King and he and Kate had no child the instant William died Harry would be King - no need to proclaim anything - Harry would be King.

Now the question arises as to would he abdicate, would he declare that the child of his older brother was to succeed him or what but Harry would be King instantly.

The parliament would have to pass the necessary legislation to deal with the situation.
__________________

__________________
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
belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:57 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]