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

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.

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.)

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]

Originally Posted by Josefine

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".

[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]

Originally Posted by kinneret5764

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]

Bill challenges 'outdated' royal succession rules

Thursday December 9, 2004

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/const...370194,00.html



There might be hope for us after all!

[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