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

[Lady Marmalade]

Originally Posted by Princess BellyFlop

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?

really? no kidding.... I was just voicing my thoughts on the subject.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by 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/s...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.

Reading that wording if she was a Roman Catholic at any time then he would lose his place in the line of succession, which raises questions in my mind about Queen Victoria agreeing to Eddy's choice - maybe the stories about him being murdered so that George could succeed are true. If he married the RC daughter of the Duc d'Orleans (her actual name escapes me) according to this quote he would have been barred, even if she converted.

We do know that conversion after marriage has allowed the person to remain in the line of succession - e.g. the Duke of Kent so maybe the passage of time would allow the conversion after meeting the Prince.

I do find it funny that so much is made of the British system whereby ONE religion is barred but other royal families insist on the spouse being a specific religion and no-one seems to care - e.g. the Spanish spouse must be RC and the Swedish and Danish must be Lutheran. Princess Mary had to actually convert from Presbyterianism to Lutheranism before marrying Prince Frederick.

Maybe the Brits should have insisted on Church of England spouses rather than banning RC ones only.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by 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.

My point wasn't so much that they knew that that was where the humans species began but that as that was where they began people in Europe would have known the continent was there as they would have gone from Africa to Europe and continued contact throughout history.

I expressed myself extremely badly - I am sorry for that.

I hope you understand my point now. I am having a bad day and writing badly but hopefully I am getting clearer.

[Princess BellyFlop]

Originally Posted by 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/s...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.

Thank you Oppie, it's very nice of you to provide us with this official text. English not being my first langage this text does look to me as «lawyer English» and gives lots of place for interpretation or loopholes. We should just thank God that Kate is most probably of anglican faith.

[Oppie]

See the problem :) According to Chrissy interpretation he can't marry anyone who is Catholic, according to mine he can as long as they aren't Catholic at the time of the marriage. I have no idea who is right.

[segolen]

Originally Posted by Princess BellyFlop

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?

i will try to find it later on for ya. Now i got to go to my class, but will try to find it tonight

[Warren]

Originally Posted by 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:

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

Note that this clause relates to who may succeed to the Crown. The spouse of a Prince/Princess or Monarch is not in the line of succession.

The only part that is important is "or marry a papist". My understanding is that the only requirement is that the spouse is not Roman Catholic at the time of the marriage.

The d'Orléans Princess was Hélène. Queen Victoria wrote to Prince Eddy in May 1890: "...None of our family can marry a catholic without losing all their rights and I am sure that she would never change her religion and to change her religion merely to marry is a thing much to be deprecated..." source "Queen Mary" by James Pope-Hennessy. This would indicate that, for a spouse, conversion from Roman Catholicism prior to marriage complies with the Act of Settlement and is therefore OK.
.

[Idriel]

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?

Hello Flora.
It is wrong since there had been two black Queen of Great Britain.

#Queen Phillipa (first picture), Queen in 1327
#Queen Charlotte (second pic), Queen somewhere in the XVIIIth century

I think back then the concept of race or nationality was of relatively low importance (especially nationality). Those concepts became very important with the rise of the Romanticism, so it's quite recent.

Obviously nowadays, and considering the degree of racism (latent or openly expressed) among the British society, a non-white royal spouse in highly unlikely.

[Danielane]

What is this story about two blacks Queens in England? I didn't know this, but I thought queen Philippa and queen Charlotte were white and coming from European families?

[chrissy57]

Queen Philippa wouldn't have been covered by any such clause in either the Bill of Rights or the Act of Settlement as she was Queen Consort much earlier than those acts came into being.

Queen Charlotte would seem to say that no such clause actually exists.

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Danielane

What is this story about two blacks Queens in England? I didn't know this, but I thought queen Philippa and queen Charlotte were white and coming from European families?

Hello Danielane. You are right, they were European aristocrat, but of black heritage nevertheless.

Here a physical description of Phillipa:

"The lady whom we saw has not uncomely hair, betwixt blue-black and brown. Her head is cleaned shaped; her forehead high and broad, and standing somewhat forward. Her face narrows between the eyes, and the lower part of her face is still more narrow and slender than the forehead. Her eyes are blackish brown and deep. Her nose is fairly smooth and even, save that is somewhat broad at the tip and flattened, yet it is no snub nose. Her nostrils are also broad, her mouth fairly wide. Her lips somewhat full and especially the lower lip…all her limbs are well set and unmaimed, and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father, and in all things she is pleasant enough, as it seems to us."

And a comment about her son Edward:

"This first child was called Edward, like his father, but is better known as the Black Prince. Many say that he was called this because of the colour of his armour, but there are records that show that he was called 'black' when he was very small. The French called him 'Le Noir'."

About Queen Charlotte:

"Queen Charlotte, wife of the English King George III (1738-1820), was directly descended from Margarita de Castro y Sousa, a black branch of the Portuguese Royal House. The riddle of Queen Charlotte's African ancestry was solved as a result of an earlier investigation into the black magi featured in 15th century Flemish paintings. Two art historians had suggested that the black magiC must have been portraits of actual contemporary people (since the artist, without seeing them, would not have been aware of the subtleties in colouring and facial bone structure of quadroons or octoroons which these figures invariably represented) Enough evidence was accumulated to propose that the models for the black magi were, in all probability, members of the Portuguese de Sousa family.
Six different lines can be traced from English Queen Charlotte back to Margarita de Castro y Sousa, in a gene pool which because of royal inbreeding was already minuscule, thus explaining the Queen's unmistakable African appearance."

Hope that helps.

[Danielane]

Thanks a lot Idriel. I knew that one with very ancient african ancestors could have some african appearence, but I didn't know it had happened for some queens of England. Very interessant topic.

[Danielane]

Just another question: where did you find these descriptions?

[Idriel]

Originally Posted by Danielane

Just another question: where did you find these descriptions?

Very rude of me not quoting my sources :o ...
Anyway, you can find articles on both Queen on this website: http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/

On Wikipedia you can find an interesting article on Charlotte and reference to her mulatto physical features (through it's quite obvious when you see the portraits). I found no other sources concerning Phillipa but I trust the former website to be reliable.

[branchg]

The Act of Settlement prohibits any member of the royal family from marrying a Catholic without renouncing their rights to succession. Technically, William could marry a Catholic if she renounced her faith prior to the wedding, but this would be subject to the approval of the Sovereign after taking advice from the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I think it is extremely unlikely this will come up as William understands his future role as King and there are plenty of non-Catholics he is likely to encounter and marry at some point in the future.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Warren

The d'Orléans Princess was Hélène. Queen Victoria wrote to Prince Eddy in May 1890: "...None of our family can marry a catholic without losing all their rights and I am sure that she would never change her religion and to change her religion merely to marry is a thing much to be deprecated..." source "Queen Mary" by James Pope-Hennessy. This would indicate that, for a spouse, conversion from Roman Catholicism prior to marriage complies with the Act of Settlement and is therefore OK.
.

I believe Princess Helene's family was also adamantly opposed to a marriage as well. I wonder if Prince Ernst-August of Hanover also renounced his rights to the British throne before he married Caroline of Monaco? I would imagine he did, even though it was merely a formality, as he sought permission from the Queen to marry.

[chrissy57]

He didn't need to renouce his rights. He automatically lost them when he married. Why would he renouce his rights beforehand? What if they called off the wedding? Then the reason for renoucing would no longer exist.

Once he married he automatically was out of the line of succession so no renouciation was necessary.

Their daughter is still in the line of succession as she is being raised a protestant.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

He didn't need to renouce his rights. He automatically lost them when he married. Why would he renouce his rights beforehand? What if they called off the wedding? Then the reason for renoucing would no longer exist.

Once he married he automatically was out of the line of succession so no renouciation was necessary.

Their daughter is still in the line of succession as she is being raised a protestant.

I'll have to research this question a bit. I believe the Government requires a formal renunciation of succession rights, despite the Act's provision, in order to ensure a member of the royal family does not mount a claim in the Courts to challenge their right to the throne. Again, I'm sure this is simply a legal formality, but I believe the royal must formally renounce as well.

[chrissy57]

So what you are saying is that the Parliament requires an extra document despite the fact that an Act clearly sets out the terms under which the person is ineligible?

If I am understanding you correctly the Parli