Autumn Kelly Converts: Peter Phillips Keeps Place in Succession - May 2008 - Page 7

IloveCP · #**121** 06-10-2011, 12:50 AM

I wonder what the british people thought of this.Of course there are a lot of catholics in Britian and Im sure there offended by the no catholics allowed policy.They really should change the law,but I know it's not easy.

Renata4711 · #**122** 06-10-2011, 10:07 AM

It's not just "not easy" - it would be near impossible.

The Crown has two facets: Anglicanism and the State.

To try to disentangle them would mean re-writing the constitution.

KittyAtlanta · #**123** 06-10-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen

Well if Charlene's converted, that would mean you would have to be Catholic to marry, wouldn't it?

Sometime earlier this year, the Archbishop explained that Charlene did NOT have to convert to wed Albert. I can't remember what he said about how the children would be raised.

Renata4711 · #**124** 06-10-2011, 02:28 PM

Albert's children would be raised Catholic. Not a stipulation from Monsignor Barsi or the Pope, but Monaco's Constitution.

One could say it's the same situation with Britain and Monaco.
The constitution wins every time...

sophie25 · #**125** 06-10-2011, 04:46 PM

Monaco and Britain are different. In Monaco as long as the children are brought up Catholic the Prince's wife can be whatever religion she likes, the same as in Holland for example where Princess Maxima has remained a Catholic but the children have to be raised as Protestants. In Britain a member of the Royal Family cannot succeed to the throne with a Catholic spouse under any circumstances.

Biri · #**126** 02-26-2015, 07:08 PM

Well, they divorced and both remarried, so I don't think they are very practising Catholics.

COUNTESS · #**127** 02-26-2015, 09:05 PM

Remember, Anglicans or Episcopalians here, are, really, Catholic, just not Roman Catholic. The same basic services and Liturgy.

Iluvbertie · #**128** 02-26-2015, 09:24 PM

However, under the Act of Settlement, anyone married to a Roman Catholic automatically loses the place in the line of succession so there is a difference.

That will change, when the Succession to the Crown Act is finally passed into law.

The British monarch obviously can't be Roman Catholic and that makes perfect sense as well,

AdmirerUS · #**129** 02-27-2015, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biri

Well, they divorced and both remarried, so I don't think they are very practising Catholics.

? Depending on the local church that you attend, you can be divorced and a practicing Catholic. Most divorced/remarried Catholics that I know fall into the "you can attend church, pray, donate and participate in the social life of the Church. You may also take sacraments if you are not sexually active in your marriage." I live in the US Midwest and find this is very common.
There is also the more-rare Catholic who has been told by a priest to follow a "don't ask, don't tell policy" and to go ahead and take sacrament in a local church that does not know of the prior divorce.
Off topic, but I thought I'd share what I'd learned from my experience of the RC Church.

Rosena6 · #**130** 03-16-2018, 09:14 PM

His wife Autumn had to convert from Catholicism so that he could remain in the line of succession.
I think the changes that now allow marriage to a Roman Catholic were proposed well after their wedding, and applied retrospectively?

Pranter · #**131** 03-16-2018, 09:20 PM

I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.

LaRae

Rosena6 · #**132** 03-16-2018, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.

LaRae

Both of Princess Anne's children are.
She converted for sure. It was widely reported back then.

Countessmeout · #**133** 03-16-2018, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.

LaRae

Peter is certainly in line of succession. As a legitimate protestant descendent of Sophia of Hannover (the only requirements) he was born in line of succession. And by marrying a protestant (required at the time of his marriage) and having the permission of his grandmother, he maintained it. Peter is currently 13th and his daughters 14th and 15th. There are something like 5000 heirs to the throne.

Quote:

His wife Autumn had to convert from Catholicism so that he could remain in the line of succession.
I think the changes that now allow marriage to a Roman Catholic were proposed well after their wedding, and applied retrospectively?

Because amending a succession law is not a simple thing, takes times and the agreement of the realms the queen rules under. Changing the laws to allow a grandson who was at the time of his marriage 11th in line to the throne, to marry a catholic would be a stretch.

If he had married her without her converting, he would have been reinstated in succession eventually. George, the Earl of St Andrews lost his place in succession when he married a catholic in 1988. He was returned to the line of succession with the passing of the new act and is now 35th.

Pranter · #**134** 03-16-2018, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosena6

Both of Princess Anne's children are.
She converted for sure. It was widely reported back then.

I know she converted...I said she didn't have to convert.

LaRae

Pranter · #**135** 03-16-2018, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Peter is certainly in line of succession. As a legitimate protestant descendent of Sophia of Hannover (the only requirements) he was born in line of succession. And by marrying a protestant (required at the time of his marriage) and having the permission of his grandmother, he maintained it. Peter is currently 13th and his daughters 14th and 15th. There are something like 5000 heirs to the throne.

I was thinking about the permission to marry issue...confused myself!

LaRae

Mbruno · #**136** 03-16-2018, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosena6

His wife Autumn had to convert from Catholicism so that he could remain in the line of succession.
I think the changes that now allow marriage to a Roman Catholic were proposed well after their wedding, and applied retrospectively?

The requirement not to marry a Catholic was not in the Royal Marriages Act, but actually in the Act of Settlement 1701. That section of the latter act was repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

If Autumn had not converted to Anglicanism at the time she married Peter, he would have been removed from the line of succession. However, he would have been reinstated, as Prince Michael of Kent was, in 2015, when the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 came into force, since the repeal of the prohibition of marriages to Catholics was retroactive.

As Countessmeout said, changing the succession law is actually quite complicated because it requires legislative action by other countries (though not all countries) where the Queen is also Head of State. In the case of the Succession to the Crown Act, the whole process took about 4 years to be completed, starting with the 2011 Perth Agreement. There is actually a very detailed timeline account in the Perth Agreement article on the English Wikipedia.

Countessmeout · #**137** 03-16-2018, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

I was thinking about the permission to marry issue...confused myself!

LaRae

Back when Peter married, even he required permission to marry. The whole 'only the top six heirs needs permission' has only been in place since 2015. Prior to that, everyone needed it. That is why you see Peter, Zara, and even people much further from the throne like Marine Mowatt, having letters of permission from the queen. Heck Prince Ernst August of Hannover asked permission when he married Caroline (not sure where he falls any more but he isn't even in the top 100).

Biri · #**138** 03-17-2018, 09:43 PM

Autumn didn't have to convert, but maybe she wanted to?

Gawin · #**139** 03-17-2018, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biri

Autumn didn't have to convert, but maybe she wanted to?

I think you're probably right. When it happened someone pointed out that she probably just wanted to attend the same church as her husband and any future children and since Peter wasn't going to convert to Roman Catholicism, she made the move instead.

There was practically no chance Peter would ever succeed to the throne so the argument that she converted only to keep his place in the line of succession doesn't hold water.

Denville · #**140** 03-18-2018, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pranter

I don't believe he is in the line of succession. She didn't have to convert at all.

LaRae

of course he is in the line of succession. He is the queen's grandson.. why would he not be in the line of sucession.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gawin

I think you're probably right. When it happened someone pointed out that she probably just wanted to attend the same church as her husband and any future children and since Peter wasn't going to convert to Roman Catholicism, she made the move instead.

There was practically no chance Peter would ever succeed to the throne so the argument that she converted only to keep his place in the line of succession doesn't hold water.

or she may have felt that life and what happens.. is always uncertain.. and Peter had a chance of succeeding.. albeit a very remote one.