What if William falls in love with a Catholic girl...

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by King Christian@Jun 19th, 2004 - 11:20 pm

tiaraprin   Posted: Jun 19th, 2004 - 10:28 pm

if they remove the ban on Roman Catholics, than the Stuarts can come forward with more of a pressing case that they, not the Hanoverian Windsors, are the true heirs. The Stuarts were removed from the throne for being Roman Catholics ruling a predominantly Protestant nation with the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The indignity of it all ... can you imagine, if a throne eligible royal could be allowed to marry a Catholic
... a "law-suit" going all the way up to (or starting? at) the "House of Lords" to resolve 316 years of an error-prone rule !!!!!!!!!

I was just quoting the facts King Christian--not passing judgement.

 

[babar100]

Originally posted by King Christian@Jun 18th, 2004 - 7:42 pm
of course William is going to fall in love with a Catholic girl, just like he's in love with girls from the Dutch Reformed Church and local gals from Africa with their local religions.

 

[hrhcp]

tiaraprin  Posted: Jun 19th, 2004 - 11:51 pm

The indignity of it all ... can you imagine, if a throne eligible royal could be allowed to marry a Catholic
... a "law-suit" going all the way up to (or starting? at) the "House of Lords" to resolve 316 years of an error-prone rule !

I was just quoting the facts King Christian--not passing judgement.

I am sorry that I offended you Tiaraprin ..... I was just making conversation.

 

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by King Christian@Jun 20th, 2004 - 12:03 am

tiaraprin   Posted: Jun 19th, 2004 - 11:51 pm

The indignity of it all ... can you imagine, if a throne eligible royal could be allowed to marry a Catholic
... a "law-suit" going all the way up to (or starting? at) the "House of Lords" to resolve 316 years of an error-prone rule !

I was just quoting the facts King Christian--not passing judgement.

I am sorry that I offended you Tiaraprin ..... I was just making conversation.

Not offended King Christian--just thought that you believed I was passing judgment on it all. I was just trying to state the facts as I know them to be to the best of my knowledge.

Now, since you have started this conversation , Tell me why you talk about 316 years of misrule?? I love a good conversation!!! :woot:

 

[hrhcp]

if they remove the ban on Roman Catholics, than the Stuarts can come forward with more of a pressing case that they, not the Hanoverian Windsors, are the true heirs. The Stuarts were removed from the throne for being Roman Catholics ruling a predominantly Protestant nation with the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

.. well, if (some of) the lower courts and the House of Lords found in favour of the Stuarts, then the actions/rule of the Windsors would be ?????

 

[tiaraprin]

Does the Stuart line want to return to the throne??? That is an important question!

 

[hrhcp]

Who is the Stuart line ?

Like, have they been discussed at this board?
How prominent are they in English society today?

 

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by King Christian@Jun 20th, 2004 - 12:39 am
Who is the Stuart line ?

Like, have they been discussed at this board?
How prominent are they in English society today?

The Stuart line came to the throne in 1603 upon the death of Queen Elizabeth I. King James VI of Scotland was a cousin of the Queen and nearest blood relation. King Henry VII's daughter, Margaret, married into the Scottish royal family and this passed down to Mary, Queen of Scots, and her son, James VI of Scotland.

The Stuart line in Britain officially "ended" in 1714 with the death of Queen Anne. However, Queen Anne had a half brother who was Roman Catholic. The British people did not want a Catholic monarch and that was the reason her father, James II was dethroned during the Glorious Revolution of 1688 after the birth of a son. Many stories were made up that the baby was not the King and Queen's and had been smuggled into the birthing chamber in a bedwarmer. This is the reason there have been witnesses at every royal birth until George VI revoked it in 1948.

Anne's brother was the legitimate heir, but being Catholic, he was barred from the succession and the Hanoverians were called to the British throne. Their claim came from the Electress Sophia of Hanover, whose mother was a British Princess.

The Stuarts made attempts to reclaim the throne in the 1700's but were defeated by George I and George II of England.

Today, you don't hear much of the Stuarts. If anyone has any information, please add it to my posting. Thank you.

 

[kcc]

the present stuart(jacobite)heir is franz duke of bavaria.he has no children so the stuart claims will interestingly be passed to the crown princess of liechtenstein,his niece.

 

[gaggleofcrazypeople]

Originally posted by kcc@Jul 12th, 2004 - 9:15 am
the present stuart(jacobite)heir is franz duke of bavaria.he has no children so the stuart claims will interestingly be passed to the crown princess of liechtenstein,his niece.

I'm guessing there was some inbreeding going on. :stuart:

 

[hrhcp]

..what's the consensus about what will happen when William falls in <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>love</span> with a Catholic girl ?

 

[sara1981]

you know British Royal Families cant married with Catholic! HM Queen Elizabeth 2 told kids and grandchildren dont allowed to married woman and man who are catholic makes more sinner! but my step-father is catholic also! but i cant married with catholic! but my family is Baptist but im allowed to married no matters for me but if i become Crown Princess I will half with Baptist with church of England its examples for me! but not now! because im with Baptist and christian since i was baptism years ago i have approve it!

i think church of England can allowed married with christian or Baptist no matters which religions are you? but im been grew-up as Baptist since i was childhood girl i went church lots in my hometown i went baptist church im really positives for me to have rights!

Sara Boyce

 

[Elspeth]

..what's the consensus about what will happen when William falls in love with a Catholic girl ?

Then I guess the government will wish it had done something about the Act of Settlement before being backed into a corner.

It beggars belief that William would have to give up his position in the line of succession if he wanted to marry a Catholic, but he could marry a Satanist with no problem (as far as that particular Act was concerned, at any rate).

If they're going to have an Established Church, they should require that he marry a member of that church, since she'd be crowned by the Archbishop in a C of E coronation. There's no reason to discriminate only against one branch of Christianity; in this day and age, when the monarch's religion doesn't affect people like it did back in the 17th century and earlier, it's an insult.

 

[Humble]

This British royal family is dull and getting archaic

They need a new blood in the family...

 

[carlota]

it's rumored that...

william is going out with an argentinian girl called paulina trotz, daughter of one of the most important private polo players in argentina, ernesto trotz

 

[Julian]

That's interesting news since he was sharing a house or flat with that other girl for quite a long whille. Is that over already?

 

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by Humble@Jul 17th, 2004 - 12:07 pm
This British royal family is dull and getting archaic

They need a new blood in the family...

Well, unless Parliament decides to change the law banning British Royals who marry Catholics to keep their place in the line of succession, then you are not going to see any new Catholic blood through William's line. I highly doubt he will fall in love with a Catholic girl because he knows that he can not marry a Catholic girl and be king at the same time, and he has come out and said he wishes to do his duty and be king. Now, if the girl he wishes to marry is Catholic, she can always convert and become Anglican and everything will be fine, whether she will be willing to do this is another story. Yet, unless that law is changed (I think it it"s a stupid law, but it's not high on Parliament's list to get rid of the law) I doubt William will marry a Catholic girl.

And to answer the question for which the thread is named, if William marries a Catholic girl, and she doesn't convert and become Protestant, then William wont be king.

 

[sara1981]

i agree with A.C.C.!

I wanted William to become KING! i dont wanted girls who are catholic get married at him like it! because he is church of England because his grandmother the HM Queen is head of state and church of England but he still as future King of England after his dad and his grandmum.

Sara Boyce

 

[grecka]

That will last about as long as Bush on Jeopardy. As soon as Queenie kicks the bucket, the royals will have to resign from being the heads of the Church of England.

 

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by grecka@Jul 27th, 2004 - 4:54 pm
That will last about as long as Bush on Jeopardy. As soon as Queenie kicks the bucket, the royals will have to resign from being the heads of the Church of England.

It has lasted longer than Bush on Jeopardy (what hasn't ). The British Monarch has been head of the Church of England for over 500 years since Henry VIII. The British Monarch can't just "resign" from that job or rather postion, although i do see what you are saying. It would have to take an act of Parliament to remove the British monarch as head of the Church of England. Yet that idea is more than a simple political issue, it would drastically change the Church of England and the way it operates (even though the monarch is head of the church symbolically).

I must say though Grecka that you have some of the funniest posts and you make reading them enjoyable!

 

[CathyEarnshaw]

Originally posted by grecka@Jul 27th, 2004 - 4:54 pm
That will last about as long as Bush on Jeopardy. As soon as Queenie kicks the bucket, the royals will have to resign from being the heads of the Church of England.

Grecka,

the royals are not head of the Church - the QUeen is. If she dies tomorrow, CHarles will be king and the head of the church. He cannot resign from either position.

It would take an act of parliament to change the position of the Church of England as a state church - and there are no plans to offer legislation.

 

[CathyEarnshaw]

Originally posted by sara1981@Jul 17th, 2004 - 1:02 am
you know British Royal Families cant married with Catholic! HM Queen Elizabeth 2 told kids and grandchildren dont allowed to married woman and man who are catholic makes more sinner! but my step-father is catholic also! but i cant married with catholic! but my family is Baptist but im allowed to married no matters for me but if i become Crown Princess I will half with Baptist with church of England its examples for me! but not now! because im with Baptist and christian since i was baptism years ago i have approve it!

i think church of England can allowed married with christian or Baptist no matters which religions are you? but im been grew-up as Baptist since i was childhood girl i went church lots in my hometown i went baptist church im really positives for me to have rights!

Sara Boyce

Sara, I realize you live in the US, but is English your native language? It must not be.

Queen Elizabeth 2 is a ship. The head of state of the UK is Queen Elizabeth II - and she has probably never said anything to her kids about marrying a Catholic - or not marrying one .. Anne dated Andrew Parker Bowles for several years before her first marriage, but that relationship ended because Parker Bowles is Catholic.

It would be a complicated procedure to change to the Act of Settlement because it involves several laws - and law bodies (ie other countries in the Commonwealth where the head of state is the QUeen.)

 

[CathyEarnshaw]

Originally posted by A.C.C.@Jul 25th, 2004 - 4:04 pm


Well, unless Parliament decides to change the law banning British Royals who marry Catholics to keep their place in the line of succession,

It is much more complicated than Parliament changing the law because the Act of Settlement involves several laws and several other countries.

 

[Elspeth]

The Act of Settlement happened before there was a Commonwealth; it was easy enough to put in place. The fact that it now applies to more than one country and would be complicated to repeal is not that good an excuse to not do it, given the implied religion-based prejudice that it involves. It isn't just an anachronism, it's downright offensive in this day and age that a person who has trained for years to become Head of State would have to give it up to marry someone of a different branch of the same religion. Either the consort should have to be CofE, or the consort should be able to be any religion he or she wanted to be; allowing Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Santeria, Buddhism, and goodness knows what else while prohibiting Catholicism is an affront. And no, I'm not Catholic. I think this is a matter of principle.

 

[Julian]

Since Catholics in the United Kingdom have had to put up with the Act of Settlement since its inception, I hardly see why some choose to pontificate on about something like this at this point in time when they have nothing to say about other forms of prejudice that affect far more than one family. Perhaps the only possible motive is that it's just because it's a purported favorite cause of Jug Ears to be "Defender of Faiths" ("whatever that is") that some people go on whinging about it, imagining they're taking up yet another pathetic banner of one of his inconsequential causes. The fact is, he's not wanted even as Defender of the Faith by many a C of E member much less Catholics. His version of marriage and fidelity doesn't quite square in Rome when it comes down to it.

 

[Elspeth]

Since Catholics in the United Kingdom have had to put up with the Act of Settlement since its inception, I hardly see why some choose to pontificate on about something like this at this point in time when they have nothing to say about other forms of prejudice that affect far more than one family.

People are talking about it here because somebody started a thread. People are talking about issues that affect the royal family because this is a message board about royalty. I have no idea how you know whether those same people have nothing to say about prejudice in general since you don't know what they're saying in places other than here and since that discussion would be off-topic here. As I said, I think this is a matter of principle, and it's being discussed in the particular context of what would happen if Prince William wanted to marry a Catholic; it has nothing to do with Prince Charles's feelings about which faiths he'd like to be defender of.

 

[Julian]

People are talking about it here because somebody started a thread.

People talk about a lot of things, it doesn't automatically qualify it as important and furthermore if you raise an issue, be prepared for other points of view regarding that issue to be raised. Including the point of view that the issue is one of not much consequence compared to many other issues in this world.

I have no idea how you know whether those same people have nothing to say about prejudice in general since you don't know what they're saying in places other than here and since that discussion would be off-topic here.

Was I even addressing you personally to begin with? I can tell you not. Therefore I have no idea how you would know what I know about other people's concern with other issues, many of which do in fact enter discussions on other topics.

As I said, I think this is a matter of principle, and it's being discussed in the particular context of what would happen if Prince William wanted to marry a Catholic; it has nothing to do with Prince Charles's feelings about which faiths he'd like to be defender of.

And as I said, the principle isn't a huge or important one, which is probably part of why the Act of Settlement isn't going anywhere soon. The government has far more important things to take care of. It does have to do with Prince Charles's feeling about which faiths he'd like to be defender of because chances are he'll be king before his son. He's postured on this issue by making noises about being "defender" of faiths, William's "feelings" have not been expressed afaik. Were it anything more than posturing, then perhaps William wouldn't have to worry about losing his dynastic rights if he married a Catholic.

 

[Elspeth]

People talk about a lot of things, it doesn't automatically qualify it as important and furthermore if you raise an issue, be prepared for other points of view regarding that issue to be raised. Including the point of view that the issue is one of not much consequence compared to many other issues in this world.

Most issues relating to constitutional monarchies are less important than other issues going on in the world. That doesn't stop people talking abou them on boards dedicated to discussions about royalty.

Was I even addressing you personally to begin with? I can tell you not. Therefore I have no idea how you would know what I know about other people's concern with other issues, many of which do in fact enter discussions on other topics.

I didn't say you were addressing me personally. You said

"Since Catholics in the United Kingdom have had to put up with the Act of Settlement since its inception, I hardly see why some choose to pontificate on about something like this at this point in time when they have nothing to say about other forms of prejudice that affect far more than one family."

I'm asking why you're so sure that people talking about this subject have nothing to say about other forms of prejudice that affect far more than one family. The fact that they aren't saying it here, since it would be off-topic, doesn't mean they have nothing to say about it.

And as I said, the principle isn't a huge or important one, which is probably part of why the Act of Settlement isn't going anywhere soon.

Well, I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree here. I think religious discrimination is an important issue, and this is a high-profile example. If it comes to the point where a monarch or an heir to the throne is insisting on marrying a Catholic, there's probably going to be negative responses among the public about having to quickly change a law in order to suit the personal wishes of the heir. As long as this law is an anachronism based on prejudice with an ugly history, it should be dealt with. IMO, at any rate.

The government has far more important things to take care of. It does have to do with Prince Charles's feeling about which faiths he'd like to be defender of because chances are he'll be king before his son. He's postured on this issue by making noises about being "defender" of faiths, William's "feelings" have not been expressed afaik.

This is a different issue from the faiths which Charles feels comfortable defending or not. That affects the whole issue of whether to have an Established Church. As long as CofE is the Established Church, he'll be Defender of the Faith whether he wants to be or not. If the senior representatives of the church feel that his marital antics prevent him from being recognised as such, the Archbishop of Canterbury is (as far as I know, at any rate) at liberty to refuse to crown him. This business about Catholicism and the line of succession is a specific case where one particular branch of Christianity is being discriminated against, unlike all the other branches of Christianity and all the other religions. Even with the CofE as the Established Church, the monarch could marry someone of any other religion, including non-Christian religions and including atheism, but not a Catholic. I can see an argument for requiring that the consort be a member of the CofE; I can't see any argument for the consort being able to be anything s/he wants to be, but not a Roman Catholic.

Were it anything more than posturing, then perhaps William wouldn't have to worry about losing his dynastic rights if he married a Catholic.

I don't see how it could be avoided with the current law in place and the precedent of removing the Earl of St Andrews, Lord Downpatrick (and I think Lord Nicholas Windsor), as well as Prince Michael, from the line of succession.

 

[Josefine]

what year did this law come about that the royal family can´t marry chatlics

 

[kinneret5764]

what year did this law come about that the royal family can´t marry chatlics

I think this law has been in effect since the 1700s. P. Michael of Kent had to remove himself from succession for marrying his catholic bride, "Princess Pushy".