What If William falls in love with a Catholic girl... - Page 8

segolen · #**141** 09-21-2005, 11:25 AM

Quote:

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?

here is my answer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...chy#Succession

**Warren** · #**142** 09-21-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by segolen

here is my answer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...chy#Succession

I guess this is what you are referring to from Wikipedia:
Most importantly, only individuals who are Protestants at the time of the succession may inherit the Crown. Moreover, a person who has at any time professed Roman Catholicism, or has ever married a Roman Catholic, is also prohibited from succeeding. One who is thus disabled from inheriting the Crown is deemed "naturally dead" for succession purposes.

Again, this relates to who may succeed to the Crown. Spouses are not normally in the line of succession. The only provision relating to a spouse in the Act of Settlement is that a person loses their place if they "marry a Papist." If the spouse is not a "Papist" at the time of marriage then everything is OK.

If William marries a Roman Catholic he automatically loses his rights of succession; if he marries a former Roman Catholic his rights are unaffected.
.

Princess BellyFlop · #**143** 09-21-2005, 12:12 PM

Thank you Warren and Segolen for the clarification.

Oppie · #**144** 09-21-2005, 03:32 PM

I don't think you can make a formal renunciation of your rights. If you marry a Caholic or become one then you aren't in line. If you don't want to be King/Queen if it ever comes to that then you need an Act of Parliament to remove you. (ie Edward VIII).

If there was a formal renunciation of your rights, there should be some evidence of this when Baron Downpatrick or Lord Nicholas converted.

Also in the Duke and Duchess of Kent case it seems that it only matters at the time of the marriage since he is still in line. Although it would be interesting to see what would happen if he became King and had a Catholic consort.

iowabelle · #**145** 09-21-2005, 04:07 PM

James II might be the last and best example!!

branchg · #**146** 09-21-2005, 07:23 PM

The Act of Settlement does two things, according to an expert in Crown law I consulted via email in London.

(1) It prohibits anyone other than a lineal descendant of Electress Sophia of the House of Hanover from becoming monarch; (2) It prohibits a Roman Catholic Sovereign or a Roman Catholic consort; (3) It grants Parliament the right to disqualify, remove or amend the succession to the throne at any time for any reason.

Regarding a formal renounciation of rights, I was told this is not possible. As noted by others, marrying a Catholic automatically disbars you from the succession under the Act. If you were Sovereign, Parliament would pass an Act of Abdication to remove you and your descendants from the throne for becoming Catholic.

branchg · #**147** 09-21-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oppie

Also in the Duke and Duchess of Kent case it seems that it only matters at the time of the marriage since he is still in line. Although it would be interesting to see what would happen if he became King and had a Catholic consort.

The Duke of Kent would be passed over for having a Catholic wife by Parliament.

Oppie · #**148** 09-21-2005, 07:47 PM

Re Duke of Kent (I know this is all theoritcal but still......)

Do you think the Parliament would pass him over ? For some reason I think the fall out (for Parliament) would be huge. It is one thing for them to claim it is to hard to change the law and we shouldn't change it, but would be another to remove the King (since the Duke of Kent would be King as soon as Lady Rose Windsor disappears*)

Could Parliament (again theortically) decided that someone other than Charles will follow the Queen, that seems so bizzare I have never heard of that before.

*I used disappears because for some reason die seemed wrong

branchg · #**149** 09-21-2005, 09:48 PM

Power is vested in the Sovereign through Parliament's consent. This is the heart of the constitutional monarchy. The Prime Minister exercises the royal perogative as the appointed representative of the party holding a majority in the House of Commons. The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule. As such, Parliament may remove a Sovereign, change the succession or abolish the monarchy altogether.

**Warren** · #**150** 09-21-2005, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oppie

Re Duke of Kent (I know this is all theoritcal but still......)
Do you think the Parliament would pass him over ? For some reason I think the fall out (for Parliament) would be huge. It is one thing for them to claim it is to hard to change the law and we shouldn't change it, but would be another to remove the King. Could Parliament (again theortically) decided that someone other than Charles will follow the Queen, that seems so bizzare I have never heard of that before.

As the succession rules in the Act of Settlement are laid down by the Parliament, the Act could be changed by the Parliament at any time. Unlikely, but theoretically possible. Or a special Act could be drawn up as in the case of Edward VIII. Reduced to its basics, succession to the Crown is determined by the Parliament.

If ever the Church of England is disestablished, the Parliament could take the opportunity to amend the Act of Settlement so that the provisions disbarring Roman Catholics are removed. Care would have to be taken in the drafting process so that no element of retrospectivity was allowed or inferred (to avoid the embarassment of a Stuart descendant making a claim to the Throne).

As to the Duke of Kent, there is nothing in the Act of Settlement that disbars him from the line of succession or from the Crown. From the Duchess of Kent's perspective as the incoming Queen Consort she would have to rationalise being crowned Queen in a Protestant Coronation ceremony.
.

deniz1999 · #**151** 10-08-2005, 12:20 PM

which if william or harry into a Jewess African is or into one muslimin falls in love

**Warren** · #**152** 10-08-2005, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deniz1999

which if william or harry into a Jewess African is or into one muslimin falls in love

That's OK. The Act of Settlement disbars only Roman Catholics.

** and welcome to The Royal Forums deniz1999 **
.

deniz1999 · #**153** 10-10-2005, 05:54 AM

why may he marry then no catholic??? what are of believe ago?? but Jewess muslimin... it may marry only if believes to change

**Warren** · #**154** 10-10-2005, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deniz1999

why may he marry then no catholic??? what are of believe ago?? but Jewess muslimin... it may marry only if believes to change

See branchg's post #146 below.

deniz1999 · #**155** 10-10-2005, 07:36 AM

Which For A Relgiion Has The Quenn Us The Others

**Warren** · #**156** 10-10-2005, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deniz1999

Which For A Relgiion Has The Quenn Us The Others

It's a bit hard to understand your question deniz, but Queen Elizabeth is Anglican (ie Church of England), and in England she is the Head of the Church of England.
.

deniz1999 · #**157** 10-10-2005, 09:07 AM

which for a religion is Anglican. I hear first time

Toledo · #**158** 10-10-2005, 09:14 AM

I was reading the other day the official website of the Stewart claimant, it had a lot of constitutional information on the issue of marriage between an Anglican Prince/heir to a catholic person. This rule seems to apply only in England but not in Scotland. So, if William was King o Scotland only, it will be acceptable to marry a catholic person, but in the position of King of England this will disqualify him.

Toledo · #**159** 10-10-2005, 09:15 AM

But, what if the lady in question converts before the marriage?

**Warren** · #**160** 10-10-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toledo

But, what if the lady in question converts before the marriage?

See post #142 below.