The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #321  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:43 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
There was no other choice but for Meghan to ‘find religion’. Her first wedding may have been a civil ceremony but Harry was always going to marry in a church, his grandmother wouldn’t have it any other way.
She doesn't have to be Anglican to marry in the church. Camilla Tominey did a piece on this before the engagement. Even at Westminster Abbey, they allow for interfaith or multidomination ceremonies.
__________________

  #322  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:43 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
The Abbey or St George’s have nothing to do with it. It’s The Queen who matters

And I suspect you’ll find the general public hold members of the royal family to a higher standard.

If Meghan didn’t get baptised I’m sure The Queen would direct Harry to be married in a civil ceremony.

I’m sure before she gave her permission for marriage, certain guarantees were made by the couple
__________________

  #323  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:44 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,041
Yes, and the Archbishop found that both hers and Harry's commitment to their faith as well as each other was both profound and an inspiration. I should think he would know whether the couple were sincere or not and not just the bride 'finding religion' as you put it in your post. It seems to me that the Archbishop is probably going to marry them and is taking an interest.
  #324  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:48 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 251
I wonder if her baptism will be public. I'm guessing not, which is understandable. It is quite a personal thing. I know it's regarded as a matter of public interest for babies, because they're only babies and don't care about such things yet, and indeed are not choosing, which is a whole other conversation/debate to have (the ethics! lol ) I just think it would be a lot of fun and very interesting to see Meghan's baptism. It's unique. Has it ever happened before in the British royal family? I wonder where she will be baptized? Windsor? Buckingham Palace?
  #325  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:49 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Abbey or St George’s have nothing to do with it. It’s The Queen who matters

And I suspect you’ll find the general public holds members of the royal family to a higher standard.

If Meghan didn’t get baptised I’m sure The Queen would direct Harry to be married in a civil ceremony.

I’m sure before she gave her permission for marriage, certain guarantees were made by the couple
And that means it ultimately was Meghan's choice. AOC or Queen or Prince Harry can give any ultimatum, which we have no evidence of, they want, but at the end of the day, that choice lay solely with Meghan. So you are wrong in that it's the Queen who matters. In this case, it's Meghan who matters. I don't see anyone who is against joining the Church of England to have THAT much desire to get married in St. George's Chapel if she's not allowed to unless she converts. I'd think civil ceremony would've been a weight lifted off.

Meghan obviously feels that this is the right decision for her. The AOC obviously feels that she, along with Harry, has profound commitment toward this and each other.
  #326  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:52 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
It was Meghan’s choice, no other choice if she wants to be a member of the BRF and there’s no doubt about that.
  #327  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:53 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
My guess would be Windsor because that’s where the RF spend Easter. It will be public but only for those present at the Easter service.
  #328  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:54 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
It was Meghan’s choice, no other choice if she wants to be a member of the BRF and there’s no doubt about that.
She doesn't have to be Anglican to be a member of the royal family. While there is no current senior members that aren't Anglican, there are others that aren't.

And honestly, if someone in the BRF is prevented from marrying the person they love because of this, when there is no law saying their spouse have to be Anglican, they'd be backlash from the public for it.
  #329  
Old 12-14-2017, 11:55 AM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, General News Part 1: November 2017 -

The British Public do indeed hold their Royal Family to a higher standard but religion is a private matter. We’re a secular country now. People don’t care unless they’re religious themselves and that’s rare today. Even those who are religious rarely belong to the Anglican Church. The biggest faiths in the UK today are Roman Catholicism and Islam. Trust me on this one - the public don’t care if she’s a Christian or not.
  #330  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
The Church of England is established by law. The Queen is Supreme Governor of the church

Harry needs her permission to get married, not the AoC. The Queen is a deeply religious person. So as I say, I’m sure the couple gave her certain assurances before she gave her blessing
  #331  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:05 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Abbey or St George’s have nothing to do with it. It’s The Queen who matters

And I suspect you’ll find the general public hold members of the royal family to a higher standard.

If Meghan didn’t get baptised I’m sure The Queen would direct Harry to be married in a civil ceremony.

I’m sure before she gave her permission for marriage, certain guarantees were made by the couple

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
It was Meghan’s choice, no other choice if she wants to be a member of the BRF and there’s no doubt about that.
I think you know a different Queen that the one I've come to know. HM, The Queen has a deep and abiding faith in her God and if there is anyone that would listen to and heed the words the profess the faith of the Church of England, it most definitely would be her.

What you are suggesting in your posts which I've quoted is pure religious intolerance and that doesn't sound the least like the woman I've come to know as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I think she would be the last person on this planet to insist or force a spiritual path or religion on another person because that is the way she thinks or that she believes. Especially when it comes to her beloved grandson and the woman he is deeply in love with and wants to spend the rest of his life with.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #332  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:10 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
If none of this mattered, The Queen would have been present when C&C married a second time. If she’s so easy going.

Like I said I know times are changing but The Queen is stil The Queen and she does have standards.
  #333  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,184
There were certain elements to Charles and Camilla's wedding that actually did bring a wedding in the Church of England into debate. There are none hindering the wedding of Harry and Meghan. Its a totally different situation.

Its obvious that the Church of England is backing Harry and Meghan's wedding which would leave any obstacle that you could present being laid at the Queen's feet and truthfully, you're implying that the Queen has a case of religious intolerance when it comes to this matter.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #334  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
If none of this mattered, The Queen would have been present when C&C married a second time. If she’s so easy going.

Like I said I know times are changing but The Queen is stil The Queen and she does have standards.
She couldn't be there for the civil ceremony, but was at the church blessing. I really don't think C&C is a good example to compare here. Charles will be the future head of CoE, and Harry won't be. The marriage itself was always controversial, and the Queen's approval of it was always question prior to the wedding by the public. I don't think that she disapproved from a personal standpoint, but it was something some parts of the public held onto. She's certainly not made any effort publicly to dispel it. Quite honestly, I've always felt that was at least in part to ease the people's issues with that marriage.
  #335  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:23 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Church of England is established by law. The Queen is Supreme Governor of the church

Harry needs her permission to get married, not the AoC. The Queen is a deeply religious person. So as I say, I’m sure the couple gave her certain assurances before she gave her blessing
I think you're at crossed wires a little. (Apologies to the Mods, I know this off topic!)

You're absolutely right in what you say. The Church of England is the state church and it has a national role to play both spiritually and in the legislature. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church. But...

The Queen takes no role in the actual governance of the church. That falls to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Synod. The Queen's role within the church is two fold: ceremonial and personal. As a private individual, the Queen is a devoted Christian and a regular church go-er. As monarch, she is nominally the head of the church - but she has very little to do with the actual running of the church itself. She rubber stamps decisions, she doesn't actually have any real authority within the set up of the modern Anglican Church.

Prince Harry does require the Queen's permission to announce his intention to marry. It's a little more complex than that but to avoid a huge derail, let's stick with that for now. But the Queen cannot act as celebrant, that is, she has no authority to celebrate a marriage ceremony. That falls to the church and the present rules as laid down by the General Synod state that it is upto the individual parish priest to determine, within both the law and his conscience, as to what requirements he sets for the condition of a couple when they apply to him for permission to marry with his church with him acting as celebrant. If a parish priest refuses to conduct a ceremony for any reason, a couple may petition their local Bishop or apply for a variety of licenses from the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Faculty Office of Lambeth Palace.

Let's say that the Dean of Windsor was asked to perform the ceremony in May. His personal requirements may be that he only considers that either the bride or the groom should be a member of the Anglican church. But the Dean of Windsor isn't being asked to celebrate the marriage. The Archbishop of Canterbury is. The Archbishop must therefore meet with the couple and inquire as to their religious backgrounds. His personal requirements may be that he prefers full communion for both bride and groom, in which case he would have made it clear that he would not, personally, be able to celebrate the wedding unless Meghan was received into the Anglican Communion. The couple then have a choice. They could ask the Bishop of London. They could ask the Archbishop of York. Or any other cleric permitted to celebrate marriages in Anglican churches. Providing the individual cleric agrees, the Queen doesn't come in it.

The fact is that religion has ceased to be such a high priority in the UK. The Church of England is in decline, to the point where many of it's own senior clergy do not believe it'll last another 20 years. That decline has been in effect for some time and when it comes to the Royal Family, whilst it's absolutely traditional that they are Anglicans and would become such if they were not prior to their marriage, it isn't required. Encouraged in private, perhaps. But not required. If Meghan has taken this decision, it must be because she herself feels she wants to do so. I can assure you that people in Britain aren't bothered about this. If she was Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh we probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow either (and she could still marry Harry in St George's if that were the case by the way).

Times have changed. Britain is a secular nation with a state church. It's an anomaly that will eventually have to be rectified. The only time anyone has really questioned the role of religion within the Royal Family came with the conversion of the Duchess of Kent to Roman Catholicism in 1994. Even then, people were not concerned about that so much as they were that she may be making a political statement about female ordination. Even when there were rumours that Diana was to convert, it was controversial because of it's legality and not the spiritual connotations.

In short, this isn't an issue. However she came to the decision, whoever encouraged, advised, ordered or demanded, suggested, pleaded, bribed or cajoled her into it, we'll never know. But her religion is a personal matter for her. It's nothing to do with the general public, many of whom haven't stepped foot in a church since their baptisms. It is however very much to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury because in practical terms? It's his church now. Not the Queen's.
  #336  
Old 12-14-2017, 12:51 PM
Zaira's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: A, United States
Posts: 1,216
Palmer wrote an article stating the the AOC was personally consulted about the marriage and met with Harry and Meghan. It also said the AOC would be conducting the service. Take it with a grain of salt but Palmer has decent sources usually. It wouldn’t surprise me if he officiated andn it also wouldn’t surprise me if someone who maybe Harry knows better or who is closer to him for some reason officiates.

Meghan has some sense of “religion” as her theology teachers from HS have talked well of her commitment to social justice theology and faith. Furthe, to be an ambassador of WV requires a commitment to the Christian faith, is my understanding (and that was also required for their staff and interns too). Some people, many younger people especially, are not wedded to their denominational background so maybe for Meghan being baptized in the Anglican communion isn’t a big deal because of that?

And great explanation Gaudete!
  #337  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:01 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,333
I would expect the baptism and confirmation to be private and no announcement till after the event. Same as with Catherine's confirmation.

I would have thought the Chapel Royal.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
  #338  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:19 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Hamilton, United Kingdom
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
I think you're at crossed wires a little. (Apologies to the Mods, I know this off topic!)

You're absolutely right in what you say. The Church of England is the state church and it has a national role to play both spiritually and in the legislature. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church. But...

The Queen takes no role in the actual governance of the church. That falls to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the General Synod. The Queen's role within the church is two fold: ceremonial and personal. As a private individual, the Queen is a devoted Christian and a regular church go-er. As monarch, she is nominally the head of the church - but she has very little to do with the actual running of the church itself. She rubber stamps decisions, she doesn't actually have any real authority within the set up of the modern Anglican Church.

Prince Harry does require the Queen's permission to announce his intention to marry. It's a little more complex than that but to avoid a huge derail, let's stick with that for now. But the Queen cannot act as celebrant, that is, she has no authority to celebrate a marriage ceremony. That falls to the church and the present rules as laid down by the General Synod state that it is upto the individual parish priest to determine, within both the law and his conscience, as to what requirements he sets for the condition of a couple when they apply to him for permission to marry with his church with him acting as celebrant. If a parish priest refuses to conduct a ceremony for any reason, a couple may petition their local Bishop or apply for a variety of licenses from the Archbishop of Canterbury at the Faculty Office of Lambeth Palace.

Let's say that the Dean of Windsor was asked to perform the ceremony in May. His personal requirements may be that he only considers that either the bride or the groom should be a member of the Anglican church. But the Dean of Windsor isn't being asked to celebrate the marriage. The Archbishop of Canterbury is. The Archbishop must therefore meet with the couple and inquire as to their religious backgrounds. His personal requirements may be that he prefers full communion for both bride and groom, in which case he would have made it clear that he would not, personally, be able to celebrate the wedding unless Meghan was received into the Anglican Communion. The couple then have a choice. They could ask the Bishop of London. They could ask the Archbishop of York. Or any other cleric permitted to celebrate marriages in Anglican churches. Providing the individual cleric agrees, the Queen doesn't come in it.

The fact is that religion has ceased to be such a high priority in the UK. The Church of England is in decline, to the point where many of it's own senior clergy do not believe it'll last another 20 years. That decline has been in effect for some time and when it comes to the Royal Family, whilst it's absolutely traditional that they are Anglicans and would become such if they were not prior to their marriage, it isn't required. Encouraged in private, perhaps. But not required. If Meghan has taken this decision, it must be because she herself feels she wants to do so. I can assure you that people in Britain aren't bothered about this. If she was Jewish, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh we probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow either (and she could still marry Harry in St George's if that were the case by the way).

Times have changed. Britain is a secular nation with a state church. It's an anomaly that will eventually have to be rectified. The only time anyone has really questioned the role of religion within the Royal Family came with the conversion of the Duchess of Kent to Roman Catholicism in 1994. Even then, people were not concerned about that so much as they were that she may be making a political statement about female ordination. Even when there were rumours that Diana was to convert, it was controversial because of it's legality and not the spiritual connotations.

In short, this isn't an issue. However she came to the decision, whoever encouraged, advised, ordered or demanded, suggested, pleaded, bribed or cajoled her into it, we'll never know. But her religion is a personal matter for her. It's nothing to do with the general public, many of whom haven't stepped foot in a church since their baptisms. It is however very much to do with the Archbishop of Canterbury because in practical terms? It's his church now. Not the Queen's.
Britain is indeed secular but it doesn't have a State religion .

England does ,but neither Scotland or Wales do .In Scotland HM sends a rep each year to the General Assembly (who sits in the body of the Kirk with everybody else like she herself does when she goes to a Kirk) when but that's as far as her role in the Kirk goes apart from attending services .We don't even have protestant church schools as a result of the separation of powers.And we have an Act Of Parliament that guarantees it's independence so we have a National church but not a State one
  #339  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:31 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 837
Infant baptism is uncommon in the US outside of certain denominations. Many serious Christians here don't get baptized until roughly the age of reason. In a similar vein, many non-Catholics attend Catholic schools, where they would be required to attend Mass, sit through religious classes, etc., but not expected to take the sacraments. So Meghan would have had more exposure to the Christian faith than the average unbaptized, unconfirmed person.

The Protestant Christian denominations that discourage infant baptism generally do not have any sort of confirmation. Some Protestant denominations require "re-baptism" in order to join the church.

I was reared a secular Christian, and was baptized and confirmed as an adult. It's really quite common here.
  #340  
Old 12-14-2017, 01:46 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Quote:
England does ,but neither Scotland or Wales do .In Scotland HM sends a rep each year to the General Assembly (who sits in the body of the Kirk with everybody else like she herself does when she goes to a Kirk) when but that's as far as her role in the Kirk goes apart from attending services .We don't even have protestant church schools as a result of the separation of powers.And we have an Act Of Parliament that guarantees it's independence so we have a National church but not a State one
My apologies, I should have been more specific in the distinction between England/the rest of the UK.

The real point I was trying to make was that though the church has a defined role in the legislature at Westminster, that doesn't transfer to attendance or influence. The OP seemed to think that most Britons would be horrified if Meghan wasn't an Anglican which naturally isn't the case.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Meghan Markle: Family and Background - November 2017-May 2018 soapstar The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 3418 06-19-2018 01:39 PM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Dress Suggestions and Musings soapstar Royal Style File 1819 05-19-2018 06:22 AM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Tiara and Jewelry Suggestions and Musings Tilia C. Royal Jewels General Discussion 999 05-19-2018 06:02 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american american history anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo hereditary grand duchess stéphanie history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs imperial household interesting introduction jewellery jewelry kids movie list of rulers luxembourg maxima monarchy mountbatten nepal nepalese royal family pless princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen elizabeth ii queen victoria resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress spain stuart sussex swedish queen thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america wedding gown welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:59 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×