Religion of Royal Spouses


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Máxima received dispensation from the Roman Catholic bishop of Rotterdam for her non-Catholic marriage. It was indeed clear from the start that the children would be baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church (later Protestant Church of the Netherlands).

See for example this article written at that time: https://web.archive.org/web/2014022...site_maxima/paginas/achtergronden/geloof.html

Are you sure that Máxima ever made such promise? When she became engaged, it was made very clear to her and, I believe, to the public, that she would have a Protestant wedding and that the children of the marriage would be baptized in the Protestant church, and she accepted those conditions. It would be strange and, I would dare say, even dishonest on her part to promise to raise her children as Catholics when she knew a priori that it would be impossible to fulfill such promise.

Maybe the fact that she did not have a Catholic wedding makes her situation slightly different than Maria Laura's.

The difference between the marriages of Máxima and Maria Laura is that in order to ensure their church recognized their marriages as religiously valid, Máxima Zorreguieta needed to seek approval from church officials twice over (to marry a non-Catholic as well as to hold the wedding ceremony outside of a Catholic church), whereas Princess Maria Laura only needed to seek approval for marriage to a non-Catholic (as she intends to have her religious wedding in a Catholic cathedral).

Quoting the explanation from the Catholic Church's US wedding website:

If the non-Catholic is a baptized Christian (not necessarily Catholic), the marriage is valid as long as the Catholic party obtains official permission from the diocese to enter into the marriage and follows all the stipulations for a Catholic wedding.

[...]

In cases where a Catholic is marrying someone who is not a baptized Christian – known as a marriage with disparity of cult – “the church exercises more caution,” Hater says. A “dispensation from disparity of cult,” which is a more rigorous form of permission given by the local bishop, is required for the marriage to be valid.

[...]

Because Catholics regard marriage as a sacred event, the church prefers that ecumenical interfaith couples marry in a Catholic church, preferably the Catholic party’s parish church. If they wish to marry elsewhere, they must get permission from the local bishop. He can permit them to marry in the non-Catholic spouse’s place of worship or another suitable place with a minister, rabbi, or civil magistrate – if they have a good reason, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This permission is called a “dispensation from canonical form.” Without it, a wedding not held in a Catholic church is not considered valid.


Further, because the promise concerning children is tied to the interfaith marriage, not the wedding ceremony, it will have been undertaken by both women. As each of them married after 1983, they would only have promised to "do all in their power". The website explains that this does not constitute an absolute promise to raise their children Catholic:

Because of these challenges, the church requires the Catholic party to be faithful to his or her faith and to “make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power” to have their children baptized and raised in the Catholic faith. This provision of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is a change from the 1917 version, which required an absolute promise to have the children raised Catholic.

Likewise, the non-Catholic spouse is no longer required to promise to take an active role in raising the children in the Catholic faith, but instead “to be informed at an appropriate time of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that the other party is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party,” the code states. (See the 1983 [current] Code of Canon Law, canons 1124-1129 on “Mixed Marriages” for the full text.)

But suppose the non-Catholic party insists that the children will not be raised Catholic? The diocese can still grant permission for the marriage, as long as the Catholic party promises to do all he or she can to fulfill that promise, Hater writes.


I am not very familiar with Michael of Kent, but it appears that he and Marie Christine only had a civil wedding. They later received a blessing of their marriage in a Catholic ceremony (with special papal dispensation), but I don't think they were ever technically married in the Catholic Church. So I am not sure what kind of promises either Michael or Marie Christine had to make, if any at all.

Some articles refer to the 1983 ceremony as a wedding. The Catholic church itself apparently labels the process of making a civil marriage religiously valid as "convalidation".

At first glance, it seems to involve the same requirements and ceremony as a religious-only wedding, so I assume the same promises would apply.

https://www.foryourmarriage.org/convalidation-bringing-your-marriage-into-the-church/

In fact, I wonder if the aforementioned change of church rules in 1983 was the reason why Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were able to marry/convalidate in the Catholic Church that year. As stated on the website, prior to 1983 the Roman Catholic Church would have demanded that even the Anglican Prince Michael make an unequivocal promise to raise his children as Catholics, which he was not willing to agree to.
 
Máxima received dispensation from the Roman Catholic bishop of Rotterdam for her non-Catholic marriage. It was indeed clear from the start that the children would be baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church (later Protestant Church of the Netherlands).

See for example this article written at that time: https://web.archive.org/web/2014022...site_maxima/paginas/achtergronden/geloof.html

Thank you for the source, Somebody.


Are you sure that Máxima ever made such promise? When she became engaged, it was made very clear to her and, I believe, to the public, that she would have a Protestant wedding and that the children of the marriage would be baptized in the Protestant church, and she accepted those conditions. It would be strange and, I would dare say, even dishonest on her part to promise to raise her children as Catholics when she knew a priori that it would be impossible to fulfill such promise.

Maybe the fact that she did not have a Catholic wedding makes her situation slightly different than Maria Laura's.

EDIT: I am not very familiar with Michael of Kent, but it appears that he and Marie Christine only had a civil wedding. They later received a blessing of their marriage in a Catholic ceremony (with special papal dispensation), but I don't think they were ever technically married in the Catholic Church. So I am not sure what kind of promises either Michael or Marie Christine had to make, if any at all.

Yes, we can safely assume, based on the published rules of the Roman Catholic Church and the existence of the permissions ("dispensations") they granted to Máxima and Marie-Christine (and Maria Laura), that the women made a formal promise to "do all in their power" to have their children raised Catholic. I've quoted from the church's official website in a lengthier reply [edit: which has been moved to above].
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the source, Somebody.




Yes, we can safely assume, based on the published rules of the Roman Catholic Church and the existence of the permissions ("dispensations") they granted to Máxima and Marie-Christine (and Maria Laura), that the women made a formal promise to "do all in their power" to have their children raised Catholic. I've quoted from the church's official website in a lengthier reply here:

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/religion-of-royal-spouses-4031-3.html#post2484910

Máxima may have promised to do "all in her power" to raise her children in the Catholic faith, but it should have been clear to her that it was not in her power to do that as a decision had been made that the children would be Protestant, and that was a condition for the marriage. So, to me, it looks pro forma.
 
Princess Michael did not agree to raise her children Catholic which is why Pope Paul VI refused her a dispensation to marry Anglican Michael in 1978.

John Paul II later blessed the marriage during his pastoral visit to England in 1982.

But Marie Christine never made such an agreement regarding her children.
 
Interesting. Some articles state the year as 1983 and I wonder how the blessing would have been justified by the pope in 1982 if the Catholic church's regulation on raising children in the church was only relaxed in 1983 as the website says. Is there a source which could confirm the exact date with certitude?
 
Last edited:
Reply of Mbruno:




Reply of Moonmaiden23:



Interesting. Some articles state the year as 1983 and I wonder how the blessing would have been justified by the pope in 1982 if the Catholic church's regulation on raising children in the church was only relaxed in 1983 as the website says. Is there a source which could confirm the exact date with certitude?

I don't know if it is a reliable source, but Wikipedia gives the date of the "blessing of the marriage" as June 29, 1983.
 
Re-posting this here, now that the discussion has moved to the appropriate forum:

Michael and Marie-Christine were married in a civil ceremony in the Vienna Town Hall on June 30, 1978. They were refused a Roman Catholic ceremony by Pope Paul VI because M-C had publicly declared her children would be raised in the Anglican church. But they couldn't marry in the Church of England because M-C was a divorcee (the C of E did not recognize the annulment of her first marriage by the Vatican).

The marriage was blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a Service of Prayer and Blessing for the couple held at Lambeth Palace on October 30, 1978. On July 27, 1983, Pope John Paul II sanctioned a dispensation allowing them to renew their vows in the Roman Catholic church. The ceremony took place two days later in the chapel of the Archbishop of Westminster's house. It was conducted by Monsignor Ralph Brown in the absence of Cardinal Hume (on holiday) and the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio (ill).

On August 4, Cardinal Hume issued a statement, evidently in an attempt to explain the R.C's Church's change of heart: “It is now clear that the competent authorities in Rome have been satisfied and indeed impressed by the evident and insistent efforts of the princess over the years to convey to her children a genuine love and knowledge of the Catholic faith…It has now become clear that, should the children of the marriage wish to become Catholics of their own volition in the future, then no obstacles would be put in their way, except of course that they could be deprived of the right of succession to the throne.”

Sources:

The Daily Telegraph [London], July 27, 1983, p. 8, col. 1-3

The Standard [London], July 29, 1983, p. 3, col. 1-3

The Guardian [London], August 5, 1983, p. 22, col. 1-8
 
Reply of Mbruno:




Reply of Moonmaiden23:



Interesting. Some articles state the year as 1983 and I wonder how the blessing would have been justified by the pope in 1982 if the Catholic church's regulation on raising children in the church was only relaxed in 1983 as the website says. Is there a source which could confirm the exact date with certitude?

The couples' children had already been born when JPII made his pastoral visit. Perhaps he simply wanted to give the couple his Apostolic Blessing without relaxing Church teaching on the Sacrament of Marriage which he certainly never did.( see Princess Caroline request for annulment from Philippe Junot)

Who knows?
 
Another source that explained Máxima's situation a bit more extensively. Her dispensation meant that the civil wedding ceremony was recognized as valid by the church.

https://www.rd.nl/artikel/1840-maxima-neemt-de-nooduitgang

Quoting from the article with a little help from Google Translate ( the original text is below in case the translation is not accurate; I added the emphasis):

Because of the required permission, she has had to promise to do everything in her power to avoid apostasy and to have any children baptized and educated Roman Catholics. In Máxima's case it is impossible that she will be able to fulfill the second or perhaps even the first part of this promise. Any children from their marriage will be baptized reformed.

Vanwege de vereiste toestemming heeft zij moeten beloven alles in het werk te stellen wat in haar vermogen ligt om geloofsafval te vermijden en de eventuele kinderen rooms-katholiek te laten dopen en op te voeden. In Máxima’s geval is het uitgesloten dat zij het tweede of misschien zelfs ook het eerste deel van deze belofte waar zal kunnen maken. Eventuele kinderen uit hun huwelijk zullen hervormd worden gedoopt.

That goes back to my point. Maxima and the bishop who gave the dispensation knew that it was not "in her power" to do what she was promising, so what is the point of it other than a formality? Maybe, quoting Gawin's previous post, the Church was satisfied that Máxima, like Marie Christine, would make "insistent efforts [...] over the years to convey to her children a genuine love and knowledge of the Catholic faith" even if they were raised as Protestants. Who knows, maybe Maxima does it in private, although her daughters went to a Protestant High School too, so it doesn't look like she has much of a say in those matters.
 
Last edited:
Re-posting this here, now that the discussion has moved to the appropriate forum:

Michael and Marie-Christine were married in a civil ceremony in the Vienna Town Hall on June 30, 1978. They were refused a Roman Catholic ceremony by Pope Paul VI because M-C had publicly declared her children would be raised in the Anglican church. But they couldn't marry in the Church of England because M-C was a divorcee (the C of E did not recognize the annulment of her first marriage by the Vatican).

The marriage was blessed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a Service of Prayer and Blessing for the couple held at Lambeth Palace on October 30, 1978. On July 27, 1983, Pope John Paul II sanctioned a dispensation allowing them to renew their vows in the Roman Catholic church. The ceremony took place two days later in the chapel of the Archbishop of Westminster's house. It was conducted by Monsignor Ralph Brown in the absence of Cardinal Hume (on holiday) and the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio (ill).

On August 4, Cardinal Hume issued a statement, evidently in an attempt to explain the R.C's Church's change of heart: “It is now clear that the competent authorities in Rome have been satisfied and indeed impressed by the evident and insistent efforts of the princess over the years to convey to her children a genuine love and knowledge of the Catholic faith…It has now become clear that, should the children of the marriage wish to become Catholics of their own volition in the future, then no obstacles would be put in their way, except of course that they could be deprived of the right of succession to the throne.”

Sources:

The Daily Telegraph [London], July 27, 1983, p. 8, col. 1-3

The Standard [London], July 29, 1983, p. 3, col. 1-3

The Guardian [London], August 5, 1983, p. 22, col. 1-8

Thank you, Gawin. You are wonderful at hunting down reliable sources on British royal historical events.

So, the Roman Catholic Church's change of heart regarding Marie-Christine and Michael does seem to have corresponded to their above-mentioned change of heart - and church law - for all interfaith couples in 1983, relaxing the precondition for church recognition of the marriage from an absolute promise by both parties to raise their children in the RCC to a vaguer commitment made by the Catholic party alone to "do all in his or her power" to remain Catholic and baptize and raise their children as such.


That goes back to my point. Maxima and the bishop who gave the dispensation knew that it was not "in her power" to do what she was promising, so what is the point of it other than a formality?

But again, to be pedantic, the church-mandated promise is simply to "do all in [the Catholic spouse's] power". Logically, a hypothetical spouse who knew from the outset that they would hold no power at all over their children's upbringing would not be breaching the promise by doing nothing, though you're right that in that event the promise would be a mere formality.

However, Máxima's situation was not that extreme. Even with the announcement from the government in 2002, the Netherlands remains a country where freedom of religion is enshrined in the law and parents do not hold absolute authority over their children. If one of Máxima's daughters were to be inspired by their mother's religious example, the King or Government would have no absolute power to stop her from converting to Catholicism (as vividly demonstrated with their great-aunt Princess Irene).


Maybe, quoting Gawin's previous post, the Church was satisfied that Máxima, like Marie Christine, would make "insistent efforts [...] over the years to convey to her children a genuine love and knowledge of the Catholic faith" even if they were raised as Protestants.

Yes, what the British church official said about Marie-Christine seems to be their general prescription, since 1983, when it comes to cases where "all in their power" may not suffice to produce Catholic offspring. Going back to the Catholic Church-published article quoted earlier, it states:

If children are raised in another faith [...] "the Catholic parent must show children [a] good example, affirm the core beliefs of both parents’ religious traditions, make them aware of Catholic beliefs and practices and support the children in the faith they practice".


Another source that explained Máxima's situation a bit more extensively. Her dispensation meant that the civil wedding ceremony was recognized as valid by the church.

https://www.rd.nl/artikel/1840-maxima-neemt-de-nooduitgang

Thanks, indeed a useful explanation. Related to the thread topic, that is also the reason why the divorced Letizia Ortiz was permitted to marry the Spanish crown prince in a Catholic church: Because she was a baptized Catholic who did not ask her church for permission (dispensation) to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony for her first wedding, that first marriage would have been declared religiously invalid (annulment) by the Catholic Church, freeing her to contract a religiously valid marriage for the first time.

I haven't looked up the laws or policies of the Dutch Reformed Church: Would they have recognized a civil and/or Catholic wedding without a Protestant ceremony?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, indeed a useful explanation. Related to the thread topic, that is also the reason why the divorced Letizia Ortiz was permitted to marry the Spanish crown prince in a Catholic church: Because she was a baptized Catholic who did not ask her church for permission (dispensation) to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony for her first wedding, that first marriage would have been declared religiously invalid (annulment) by the Catholic Church, freeing her to contract a religiously valid marriage for the first time.


Letizia only had a civil wedding for her first marriage, which was not "convalidated" in a Catholic ceremony. Is that equivalent to an "annulment" or does it mean that she is simply cosidered to have never been married? Or are you saying that the two are the same?
 
Letizia only had a civil wedding for her first marriage, which was not "convalidated" in a Catholic ceremony. Is that equivalent to an "annulment" or does it mean that she is simply cosidered to have never been married? Or are you saying that the two are the same?

Yes, for the Catholic Church, an annulment (they prefer the term "declaration of nullity") signifies that there was never a (religiously) valid marriage.

Should a Catholic marry without a Catholic church minister and two witnesses and without approval from the church authorities to exempt them from that requirement (such as Máxima received), their marriage will not be considered valid by the Catholic Church.

https://www.foryourmarriage.org/annulments/

What is an annulment?

"Annulment" is an unfortunate word that is sometimes used to refer to a Catholic "declaration of nullity." Actually, nothing is made null through the process. Rather, a Church tribunal (a Catholic Church court) declares that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

For a Catholic marriage to be valid, it is required that: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they are capable of giving their consent to marry; (3) they freely exchange their consent; (4) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; (5) they intend the good of each other; and (6) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by Church authority.


Why does the Church require a divorced Catholic to obtain a declaration of nullity before marrying in the Church?

In fidelity to Jesus' teaching, the Church believes that marriage is a lifelong bond (see Matt 19:1-10); therefore, unless one's spouse has died, the Church requires the divorced Catholic to obtain a declaration of nullity before marrying someone else. The tribunal process seeks to determine if something essential was missing at the moment of consent, that is, the time of the wedding. If so, the Church can declare that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day.
 
Yes, for the Catholic Church, an annulment (they prefer the term "declaration of nullity") signifies that there was never a (religiously) valid marriage.

Should a Catholic marry without a Catholic church minister and two witnesses and without approval from the church authorities to exempt them from that requirement (such as Máxima received), their marriage will not be considered valid by the Catholic Church.

https://www.foryourmarriage.org/annulments/


Just to clarify...because Letizia's first marriage didn't meet the requirements for a valid Catholic marriage, no annulment was necessary. An annulment only dissolves a marriage once thought to be valid.
 
I think it is utterly morally wrong to convert from anything to anything unless you believe in it. God's law is above man's. Whenever I hear of any conversion for the sake of marriage be it royal or other it saddens me greatly, it means the person truly believes in nothing. There was royal wedding in Jordan recently and the groom converted to Islam which I was sorry to hear.
Whoever that person who married in Jordan was obviously had to convert to marry whoever they were marrying because that’s how it goes.
 
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=235230
Whoever that person who married in Jordan was obviously had to convert to marry whoever they were marrying because that’s how it goes.
Princess Raiyah, the daughter of King Hussein and Queen Noor (herself a convert to Islam before marriage) married journalist Ned Donovan in 2019. Ned who added Faris to his name when he converted to Islam is the grandson of British-Norwegian author Roald Dahl.
 
Last edited:
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=235230
Princess Raiyah, the daughter of King Hussein and Queen Noor (herself a convert to Islam before marriage) married journalist Ned Donovan in 2019. Ned who added Faris to his name when he converted to Islam is the grandson of British-Norwegian author Roald Dahl.
And more recently princess Iman's fiancé had to convert. His Greek name is Dimitrios; he went by 'Jimmy' but was announced as Jameel Alexander Thermiotis.

See this article by the Greek press about their fellow-citizen about to marry into the Jordanian royal family.
 
I haven't looked up the laws or policies of the Dutch Reformed Church: Would they have recognized a civil and/or Catholic wedding without a Protestant ceremony?

Marriage is not an sacrament in the Dutch Reformed Church or Protestant Church of the Netherlands, so they don't feel the need to recognize a marriage as valid or invalid either. Only if a couple wishes to also obtain a blessing on their marriage ('inzegening') - the 'church/religious marriage' - the requirement is that the couple is truly married, i.e., by the civil authorities (and in accordance to their beliefs on marriage: so, local churches differ in whether they will bless a same-sex couple's marriage). Note that in the Netherlands it is prohibited for any religious figure to conduct a marriage/blessing of a marriage ceremony if no civil marriage took place. So, anyone who wants to celebrate such a marriage is expected to check whether the couple is truly civilly married.

So, yes, there is no reason why they would question whether Willem-Alexander and Máxima were indeed married given that they had a very public civil marriage - and therefore are also married in the eyes of the church. Nonetheless, the church of course prefers that the couple would also ask God's blessing upon their marriage as they would like all Christians and especially their members to do - and such a church wedding includes more extensive promises than the ones made at the civil authorities.
 
https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=235230
Princess Raiyah, the daughter of King Hussein and Queen Noor (herself a convert to Islam before marriage) married journalist Ned Donovan in 2019. Ned who added Faris to his name when he converted to Islam is the grandson of British-Norwegian author Roald Dahl.
I remember that one, but the poster who made the comment posted in 2005 and I’m wondering which Jordanian were they speaking of at the time.
 
I remember that one, but the poster who made the comment posted in 2005 and I’m wondering which Jordanian were they speaking of at the time.
I missed that.
Princess Badiya, the daughter of Prince married Edward Blair in 2005. He converted and added Khaled to his name. Badiya later said in an interview that “He became a Muslim before we married, but I was adamant that Ed’s conversion should be out of genuine religious conviction and not because of me. Would Ed have become a Muslim if he had never met me? Maybe not, it may not have occurred to him to look into it. As it was, he studied Islam and found that it was what he believed in already."
https://www.emel.com/article?id=7&a_id=2208
 
I missed that.
Princess Badiya, the daughter of Prince married Edward Blair in 2005. He converted and added Khaled to his name. Badiya later said in an interview that “He became a Muslim before we married, but I was adamant that Ed’s conversion should be out of genuine religious conviction and not because of me. Would Ed have become a Muslim if he had never met me? Maybe not, it may not have occurred to him to look into it. As it was, he studied Islam and found that it was what he believed in already."
https://www.emel.com/article?id=7&a_id=2208
Thank you. If what Princess Badiya says is correct (only she can speak for herself) then that poster was wrong to asssume her husband forcibly converted.
 
Back
Top Bottom