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

[james]

I think it's one of those laws that won't be repealed until it actually happens. If William found a catholic girl whom he really loved I can't see the government of the day objecting. There would be such an uproar in today's multicultural society and if anyone tried to stand in his way I think he is the last person who would allow anyone to do so.

 

[Elspeth]

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

The Act of Settlement dates from 1701.

 

[james]

That may be so but the Royal Family are hardly in a bargaining position these days.

 

[Dennism]

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".

"Princess Pushy?" Surely, you´re not referring to Princess Marie Christine otherwise known as the "People´s Princess"?

 

[MoonlightRhapsody]

There;s hope for us Catholic girls!!

Bill challenges 'outdated' royal succession rules

[font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]Thursday December 9, 2004

[/font][font=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The rule of male primogeniture, by which the eldest son of a monarch becomes king even if he has an elder sister, will end if a bill published today is passed.



The succession to the crown bill, sponsored by the Labour peer and former minister Lord Dubs, would allow Prince William's eldest child to succeed him regardless of gender.

"Anachronistic rules of succession risk preventing the monarchy being acceptable to a full range of 21st-century British society," Lord Dubs warns.

"Support for changes that would reflect modern Britain's values on gender and religious discrimination would be all but universal."

The bill also seeks to remove the ban on a monarch marrying a Roman Catholic by excising from the Union with Scotland and Union with England acts of 1706 and 1707 the objection to "persons marrying papists".

Finally, it would abolish the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which requires that descendants of George II - except princesses marrying into a foreign family - obtain the monarch's consent in order for their marriages to be valid.

On male primogeniture, Lord Dubs says: "The idea that a female first-born heir should be passed over in favour of a younger brother is surely offensive to the vast majority of Britons, given the great social revolution that has occurred in the position of women over the three decades since the Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1975. "Supporters of the monarchy constantly pay tribute to the great dedication of the Queen over her 50-year reign, and it is surely better to make this change at a time when the princes, William and Harry, are first and second in line to the throne rather than wait until the moment when it would change the line of succession."



Lord Dubs describes the ban on a monarch marrying a Catholic as "an outdated piece of religious bigotry ... Prince William could live with a Catholic girlfriend without forfeiting the right to be king, but the moment they were married he would be instantly disqualified," he says.

He calls the 1772 act "the Dangerous Dogs Act of its day", saying it was "passed in haste owing to George III's chagrin that his relatives were getting married without consulting him".

But Lord Dubs warns that some traditional monarchists "treat the institution like a Ming vase and are afraid to disturb it at all for fear of destroying it, while some convinced republicans fear that reform would prevent the monarchy rotting to a slow death".

As a member of the Fabian Society Executive, Lord Dubs contributed to the society's Monarchy Commission report. The palace had welcomed the document as "a useful contribution to the debate", he said.

The last attempt to remove male primogeniture came in a 1998 bill sponsored by Lord Archer. At that time, the government said it did not oppose equality but wanted to bring in its own legislation. The bill was withdrawn, but no legislation has since been introduced. Downing Street today declined to comment on the latest bill, which received its formal first reading in the House of Lords yesterday and is due for its second reading on January 14.




http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,9061,1370194,00.html



There might be hope for us after all!
[/font]

 

[bad_barbarella]

hey isnt william supposed to marry an australian?

 

[cute_girl]

what raised my eyebrows was that he can marry a girl with a religion out of christionary,if he marries a jewesh girl he cant marry in church and he'd have illigitimate children who cannot succeed the throne

 

[MoonlightRhapsody]

I don't know about that. I think the only stipulation about religion was that he couldn't marry a Catholic. That was due to the political climate centuries ago, but maybe they never though of the posibility that future kings could marry women that weren't Protestant nor Catholic.

 

[cd_1]

what raised my eyebrows was that he can marry a girl with a religion out of christionary,if he marries a jewesh girl he cant marry in church and he'd have illigitimate children who cannot succeed the throne

what do you mean? He can marry someone from anyother religoin except a Jew? Sorry, I didn;t understand.

 

[cute_girl]

he can marry a girl with any religion like jewesh,muslem,athiest and etc,the limitation is that he cannot marry a catholic

 

[cd_1]

ok, thanks

 

[florawindsor]

today i read a book in which the author said, the 1689 bill or rights forbid the heir to the throne to marry a girl from any other race, they can only marry white girls. as i never heard of this before, i searched for the text of bill of rights, but find no restraints of this sort. is the author lying?

 

[Warren]

today i read a book in which the author said, the 1689 bill or rights forbid the heir to the throne to marry a girl from any other race, they can only marry white girls. as i never heard of this before, i searched for the text of bill of rights, but find no restraints of this sort. is the author lying?

The author may not be lying but he or she is definitely mistaken.
.

 

[florawindsor]

thank you Warren for clearing that up for me
the author has made more mistakes as i read on... ;(

 

[Duchess]

There is something very funny in this story

William can´t marry anyone divorced, unless his "future wife"´s ex-husband is dead.

The funny part is:

Henry VIII broke with Roman Catholic Church, because he wanted to get divorced and marry again, and as in Roman Catholic Church : What God puts together can´t be separed, he decided to create a new religion Anglican Church.

So, my opinion about all those rules of who he can or can not marry has to be broken, a King happy is the better choise for every country, and that depende if his is with someone he really loves!!!

Sorry about my english, I´m from Brazil, hope that all of you understand what I wrote.

in the not too distant past i read an article that referred to Charles as a "widower. I'm guessing that in the Anglican church, a divorced man/woman whose former spouse is deceased is referred to as a widow(er)? Can anyone enlighten?

 

[Aussie Princess]

Well I'm only guessing, but I know that in the Catholic church, they don't recognise divorce, so they wont remarry you as they think you are still married.
If you are widowed however, you are seen as having fullfilled your marriage vows, and can remarry. So, I think that if they didn't recognise his divorce, when Diana died, he then became a widower?

 

[Iluvbertie]

It is actually a technical point. While Diana was alive he was clearly a divorced man. Once she died he became a divorced man with no living spouse. It is easier to say a widower as that is what a married man is when his spouse is dead but he technically was a 'divorced man with no living spouse' and was free to marry within the Anglican church so long as his spouse to be was also unemcumbered with a living spouse. The reason he couldn't marry Camilla in church was that her ex-husband is still alive, although not all ministers would have seen this as a problem - including my own who would have happily married them with the full rites of the Anglican church.

 

[Elspeth]

I think the problem had to do with the fact that their affair had been a factor in the breakup of her marriage, which still seems to be an obstacle to the remarriage of divorced people. Remarrying people whose affairs led to the collapse of the first marriage seems to be a bit too much like rewarding bad behaviour for the church to be happy about participating.

 

[iowabelle]

today i read a book in which the author said, the 1689 bill or rights forbid the heir to the throne to marry a girl from any other race, they can only marry white girls. as i never heard of this before, i searched for the text of bill of rights, but find no restraints of this sort. is the author lying?

I would bet that the writers of the 1689 bill could not have conceived of interracial marriages, especially in royal families.

 

[florawindsor]

I would bet that the writers of the 1689 bill could not have conceived of interracial marriages, especially in royal families.

i was thinking about that too, but i can't remember whether the Europeans know about the African/Asian so i'm not sure

 

[Iluvbertie]

As human beings started in Africa there was no need for explorers to discover it as they already knew it was there.

Europeans certainly did from ancient times e.g. Egyptian history goes back over 5000 years.

The Europeans who were writing the Bill of Rights in 1689 certainly would have known about Africa and the Americas, which had been settled for nearly 200 years at that time. The slave trade between Africa and the Americas had been going for over 100 years at the time of writing the Bill of Rights.

Just as the authors of this document didn't consider the possibility of a mixed-race marriage they also didn't consider the possibility of a mixed-religion marriage such as Christian/Jewish or Christain/Muslim. If they did fear these marriages they didn't see them as a threat to their way of life in the way that they saw a Roman Catholic marrying the monarch.

 

[segolen]

My guess is she would change her religion.

As I remember, Wills is not allowed to marry a girl with a changed religion even. She must be born non-catholic..
I assume, he would avoid dating a catholic girl, to exclude future problems with his family and the law. And he is very diplomatic , indeed.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I am not totally sure that that is correct as Edward's VII's eldest son, at one time, proposed to the Roman Catholic daughter of the Duc d'Orleans. Queen Victoria agreed, at least privately, on the condition that the Pope would agree to her changing her religion. He refused. End of engagement.

I am sure that if it wasn't possible to marry someone who was prepared to change their religion then there would have been no suggestion of Queen Victoria and her son giving any form of consent to this marriage.

Of course Victoria may have been buck passing and said sure you can get married with the Pope's consent knowing that the Pope would say no so problem solved. I wonder what would have happened if he had said yes. Then we might have an answer to the question - would Eddy have remained in the line of succession.

In addition during the 1970s when Charles was the pin-up boy that William is now there were often suggestions of him marrying one of the Roman Catholic princesses such as Marie-Astrid of Luxemborg and again the suggestion was that the Pope would have to give his consent to that. There was not suggestion that that marriage would cost Charles the throne.

 

[florawindsor]

kaka, my bad. i'm not a good student of history.

As human beings started in Africa there was no need for explorers to discover it as they already knew it was there.

Europeans certainly did from ancient times e.g. Egyptian history goes back over 5000 years.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm sure humans did know that Africa existed, but I don't know that it would have been because Africa was the birthplace of the species. When Darwin suggested that in the 19th century, he was met with a lot of opposition by many people who were sure that humans had originated in the Fertile Crescent in Asia.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

As I remember, Wills is not allowed to marry a girl with a changed religion even. She must be born non-catholic..
I assume, he would avoid dating a catholic girl, to exclude future problems with his family and the law. And he is very diplomatic , indeed.

It's the 1st time that I read that a spouse who changed religion is also non-acceptable. Would you have any text reference to this?

 

[Lady Marmalade]

plain and simple...he loses his place in line to the throne, case closed...it would take an act of parliament to remove the law barring marriage to Catholics and still be able to be in line to the throne, and that looks like it is not happening anytime soon.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

plain and simple...he loses his place in line to the throne, case closed...it would take an act of parliament to remove the law barring marriage to Catholics and still be able to be in line to the throne, and that looks like it is not happening anytime soon.

Gee... we all agree that if he marries a catholic he loses his place in line to the throne, due to a very old law. we are now questioning whether or not he still loses his rights if his Catholic girlfriend converts to the Anglican church. Some say yeah others hum?

 

[Oppie]

I think that the law says something along the lines if a person every becomes Catholic or in the past was Catholic then they lose there place (even if you are Catholic and convert you still are not in line) or marries a Catholic. My guess if William wanted to marry a Catholic who converted either before or after she met him then they would consider her a non Catholic (sort of a loop hole)

I don't know if this makes sense I am going to try to find the exact wording.

 

[Oppie]

Here you go


And it was thereby further enacted, that all and every person and persons that then were, or afterwards should be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same:

from http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407239,00.html


So marry a papist is a no go, if she converts my guess is they will just use that line as a loop hole.