What If William falls in love with a Catholic girl... - Page 6

cd_1 · #**101** 12-14-2004, 09:48 AM

ok, thanks

florawindsor · #**102** 09-15-2005, 02:23 AM

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** · #**103** 09-15-2005, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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

florawindsor · #**104** 09-17-2005, 02:58 AM

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

Duchess · #**105** 09-17-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caroline21

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 · #**106** 09-18-2005, 03:15 AM

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?

chrissy57 · #**107** 09-18-2005, 04:46 AM

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** · #**108** 09-18-2005, 11:22 AM

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 · #**109** 09-18-2005, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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

florawindsor · #**110** 09-18-2005, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle

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

chrissy57 · #**111** 09-19-2005, 02:47 AM

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 · #**112** 09-19-2005, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orién-Reverie

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.

chrissy57 · #**113** 09-19-2005, 05:08 AM

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 · #**114** 09-19-2005, 09:00 AM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57

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** · #**115** 09-19-2005, 11:55 AM

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 · #**116** 09-19-2005, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by segolen

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 · #**117** 09-19-2005, 12:21 PM

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 · #**118** 09-19-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?