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

[Lady Marmalade]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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/story/0,2763,407239,00.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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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]

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/story/0,2763,407239,00.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]

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]

Conversion, marriage & succession

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]

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.

 

[Sancia]

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?

 

[Iluvbertie]

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]

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.

 

[Sancia]

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.

 

[Sancia]

Just another question: where did you find these descriptions?

 

[Idriel]

Just another question: where did you find these descriptions?

Very rude of me not quoting my sources ...
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]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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]

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.

 

[Iluvbertie]

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 Parliament is not accepting the terms of an Act of Parliament as being binding on the people to which it directly refers but requires that it be given extra notification even though that extra notification is not required by the specific Act of Parliament itself.

To me you are saying that an Act of Parliament is not binding on the people.

 

[Warren]

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?

To me you are saying that an Act of Parliament is not binding on the people.

Yes chrissy57, this raises the question: what would happen if a person declines to make such a formal renunciation? And why would, for example, Prince Ernst August make such a renunciation to the British Government when the law clearly disqualifies him from the line of succession the moment he marries a Roman Catholic?

To reinforce your point, either an Act of Parliament is law or it isn't.
.

 

[segolen]

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_monarchy#Succession

 

[Warren]

here is my answer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_monarchy#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]

Thank you Warren and Segolen for the clarification.

 

[Oppie]

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]

James II might be the last and best example!!

 

[branchg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
.