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
 
  #141  
Old 11-09-2005, 12:22 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
The 'problem' is that if they change the law to allow Catholics to come to the throne then are they going to change it to allow buddhists, muslims, jews and mormons to become Sovereign? I hate to sound 'racist' but I'd prefer a Christian Sovereign only - whatever their denomination (whatever my personal preference).
The current law requires the monarch to be a communicant of the Church of England, since the CofE is the established church. That's a different matter from the specific exclusion of Catholics as spouses. They could overturn the latter while leaving the former alone. As long as there's an established church in England, it makes sense for the monarch to be a communicant of it.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 11-09-2005, 12:28 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
I'm not sure I'd count Mary I as one of our better monarchs.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 11-09-2005, 05:01 PM
tiaraprin's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Near NY City, United States
Posts: 1,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
I would but I think it's down to personal beliefs and views of what a Monarch should be. I think that for her time and for her faith she was a brilliant Queen. Those who were burned at the stake wouldn't agree with me I'm sure.
While Mary I was a good woman deep within her heart, she is one of the main reasons Catholics are excluded from the throne in my opinion. Her brutality against anyone not Catholic was horrible. At least her sister Elizabeth I tried to bring some tolerance to the table.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 11-09-2005, 05:15 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: los angeles, United States
Posts: 52
I think it is a little dangerous to start messing with sucesssion law today. It raises the question where do you stop? If TOny BLair had his chance I seriously think he would try to get rid of the royal house and be the first president of the UK. We talk so much about keeping tradition etc. If the system is working why mess with it. I think the current system is something that sets the UK apart from the other monarchies. The pomp and circunstance is nice to see when other monarchies have abondoned it- in some cases. I personally don't want to see footage of the Queen riding a bike around London.

As for equal rights for males and females. I think it is so much harder for the female monarchs because the traditional roles are switched. You have to find a mate who will be okay with being secondary to you and all the other issues that arise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 11-09-2005, 05:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Keep in mind the marriage of an heir to the throne requires the consent of the Queen and Parliament. It is highly unlikely William would be allowed to marry anyone who is not Anglican (i.e. a Muslim) or willing to convert to the Church of England prior to marriage. So, in practice, the Act of Settlement can be used in a number of ways to ensure union with the Church.

The Church of England remains within the temporal power of the Crown and anyone close to the succession must marry someone in communion with it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 11-09-2005, 05:33 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,538
You know something that never dawned on me?

I think Elspeth pointed it. The heir, or any other member of the RF, can marry a Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, etc, and still retain their place in line. Only if they marry a Catholic, or convert, do they lose their place.....very interesting....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 11-09-2005, 05:57 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksenia
As for equal rights for males and females. I think it is so much harder for the female monarchs because the traditional roles are switched. You have to find a mate who will be okay with being secondary to you and all the other issues that arise.
I agree with you ksenia. Its not an issue of whether the women are capable, they are. And when there is no available male heir, a female monarch from the same family is far better than picking a male who may be living in a different country and has no knowledge of the position of monarch.

But, a crown prince is going to have an easier time of finding a woman willing to be crown princess than a crown princess of finding a willing consort. Margrethe, Beatrix, and Elizabeth are the exceptions. I think Beatrix is the only one who had a really good and supportive marriage.

I'm just surprised that England and Scotland allowed female monarchs so early in their history. This was so far in advance of the notion that women were people in their own right and had their own rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 11-09-2005, 06:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,538
Fascinating how a woman could rule the country...but not vote in elections..as women were not granted that right until the 20th century in Britain first and then the U.S.

Which leads me to realize a woman legally could be president before that time...she just could not vote for herself..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 11-09-2005, 06:10 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
There's that very grand story about Queen Mary and the suffragette. A lady at court threw herself in front of Queen Mary and said, "Help Us Ma'am - We must be able to vote!". The Queen looked out of the window, said "Charming Weather we're having" and walked on past as if nothing had happened. So, Queen Mary was against women voting but for her grand-daughter ruling. As you say Lady Marmalade - fascinating and strange.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 11-09-2005, 06:29 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Yes, exactly. Very strange.

Queen Victoria had the same aversion to women being given the vote.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 11-10-2005, 07:18 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel
I'm just surprised that England and Scotland allowed female monarchs so early in their history. This was so far in advance of the notion that women were people in their own right and had their own rights.
The notion of a female Queen of England goes back even further. Matilda daughter of Henry I, was proclaimed Queen of England in 1141. The barons would not accept her and instead backed her cousin Stephen. Matilda did however have the last laugh; by marrying Geoffrey Plantagenet she co-founded the dynasty that ruled England from 1154 (their son Henry II) to 1485 (Richard III).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 11-11-2005, 12:22 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
There's that very grand story about Queen Mary and the suffragette. A lady at court threw herself in front of Queen Mary and said, "Help Us Ma'am - We must be able to vote!". The Queen looked out of the window, said "Charming Weather we're having" and walked on past as if nothing had happened. So, Queen Mary was against women voting but for her grand-daughter ruling. As you say Lady Marmalade - fascinating and strange.
Didn't Queen Victoria reign and not 'rule' by her time? Or was this after her death that it became a constitutional monarchy? I need to brush up on my British history.:)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 11-11-2005, 12:45 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
The 'problem' is that if they change the law to allow Catholics to come to the throne then are they going to change it to allow buddhists, muslims, jews and mormons to become Sovereign? I hate to sound 'racist' but I'd prefer a Christian Sovereign only - whatever their denomination (whatever my personal preference).
As a Catholic I wouldn't mind the monarch being required to stay or to be Anglican. It doesn't offend me. It is the Royal family's heritage and personal faith. I am content to know that their pre-Henry VIII ancestors were Roman Catholic. It's just a nice thing to know.

I have mulled this over though. What about the Jacobites? The descendants of James II-where would they fit in to the picture if at all? I did read on the BBC page once that the would be Catholic King is a nice guy who isn't interested in being a monarch. :)

If they change things I suppose William could do right by the Jacobites and marry one of their Princesses to make up for Bonnie Prince Charlie's descendants being shut out. Then again never mind!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 11-11-2005, 12:59 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
Salic Law is male succession only. Liechtenstein has Salic Law; Part III Article 12 of the House Laws 1993 of the Princely House states that only males can succeed to the throne.

I thought we were talking about changing the law to allow someone in the line of succession to keep their place if they married a Roman Catholic. The Act of Settlement also states "That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established.".So we are safe from Tom Cruise and the Scientologists, at least in the short term.
Yes when I saw that about Salic law it confused me a bit because I remember in the Kenneth Branaugh film "Henry V" the king mentions Salic law, and he asks his advisors if he should have a right to France because of this law. He told them to take care with their answer so to not 'awaken his sleeping sword of war'.

Another problem with changing the law as to religion-what of the Regalia which has the cross atop? And the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot very well crown or anoint a Jewish or Hindu monarch. I mean I suppose he could but I imagine the peoples of those non-Christian faiths would not be too happy about it. This is very interesting because I have read that the Archbishop wants to make the next coronation inclusive-not have clergy of other faiths just read a line or two from their respective scriptures but to actually take part in the ceremony in a meaningful way. I have read that this would include doing away with Holy Communion for the Coronation. I will try to find the article where I read it and post! It's online somewhere!

I am listening to my CD of the Coronation Of Queen Elizabeth II. How thrilling to hear "Zadok The Priest and Nathan the Prophet anointed Solomon King". But who will get to do the anointing in the next Coronation I wonder? If they change the law I mean.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:05 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: los angeles, United States
Posts: 52
I think that it would be nice to have other clergy present at the coronation but to change the actual ceremony would be too much. Leave the tradition as it is because it is a religious ceremony. if you want it to be a purly civil thing then why have a coronation at all?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:08 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth
I'm not sure I'd count Mary I as one of our better monarchs.
She's my favorite British Queen Regent. She wasn't the best but then she had the worst father in the world. My heart just went out to her when I started to learn about her story as a teenager. I mean really learn. I had heard the 'Bloody Mary' stories in grade school. As one of her biographers wrote her father was bloodier-he just had a better PR man. He and Elizabeth had better advisors too.

Anyway back to the subject! The one problem I have with the Act Of Settlement is that I find the specific 'Catholic' reference offensive. It was understandable in the time of the Glorious Revolution. But that was then, this is now and we're all friends now. People of all faiths I mean at least in the Western World. Well most of us. :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:31 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
By hanging Catholics?
Uh oh. This seems like an interesting subject but in a thread all it's own!:)

All ruling monarchs in British history persecuted or discriminated against subjects not of their faiths.

Henry VIII is unique in that he burned 'Protestant' heretics (he was 'Catholic' in his beliefs) and at once he beheaded Catholics for not swearing allegiance to him instead of the Pope. The Protestant Queen Elizabeth I had her Catholic cousin Mary, Queen Of Scots beheaded, and I am sure did all she could as did Protestant subjects (and rightly so I think) to denigrate the memory of her half-sister Queen Mary I. I think it is fascinating, and touching too in a way that Mary and her little half-sister rest together in eternity. Of course little sis has the monument (I wish they'd add one for Mary but that's just me). I like the inscription on their tombstone. I also like that James I had an even grander monument made for his Mama. I hope William does the same for Diana one day. I would if she had been my mom. :) And something much better than the tacky trench they call a memorial fountain.

And speaking of Mary, Queen Of Scots that is one title I would like to see again. King or Queen Of Scots added to the monarchs other titles. I'm a sucker for Braveheart. :)

edited to add 'discriminated' against. Not all sovereigns were 'whack happy'. Beheaded I mean.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:34 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,538
Isn't Queen Elizabeth II known by another numeral in Scotland?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:38 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,538
My pleasure.

There are some fun forums to read in the British Royals section. I usually find the opinions, facts, concepts, and points of view are the most interesting to read in these.

And I am a sucker for Prince Andrew and Peter Phillips...I admit it.... :)

I think, Warren the moderator, just shakes his head now when us girls go into gossip mode like teenagers about these two... :)

He is a sweetheart.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 11-11-2005, 01:44 AM
Queen Mary I's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksenia
I think that it would be nice to have other clergy present at the coronation but to change the actual ceremony would be too much. Leave the tradition as it is because it is a religious ceremony. if you want it to be a purly civil thing then why have a coronation at all?
You know what I am afraid of? That they will eliminate the Coronation totally and just have an swearing in. It seems I've waited my whole life to see one and it would be such a bummer if the go the route of some of the other monarchies-the Regalia laid out but no crowning. :( And since I am on that subject I would dearly love to see Coronations making a comeback for all the Royal families. I was a little girl but I vaguely remember King Juan Carlos's Investiture. I think it was Juan Carlos! Or maybe it was a Prince? Anyway they showed a little bit of it on TV. Royalty was a big deal because of our own princess Her Late Serene Highness Princess Grace may she rest in peace. :( Anyway the day after the Investiture I remember one of the articles headed with "Where's The Majesty?". It was basically like a civil wedding in a tiny office with no Pomp no Circumstance. :(
__________________

__________________
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
belgium 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 germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia 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 pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:29 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]