Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Pranter]

If Meghan ever attended Mass while at Catholic schools (and I'd say she did at least a few times) then she won't find the CoE services that different or strange.


LaRae

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Pranter

If Meghan ever attended Mass while at Catholic schools (and I'd say she did at least a few times) then she won't find the CoE services that different or strange.


LaRae

I think there's been some misunderstanding as to what I put in my original post on this. I'm not suggesting that Meghan will find worship with the Royal Family strange, I'm suggesting that some Anglicans would find the way the Royal Family worships to be strange given the variation of worship which is offered across the UK in the one denomination.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Somebody

On requiring baptism to partake in communion they do. Any additional requirements (several vicars will ask that only those believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior partake, many will use less specific formulations such as ' all baptized christians' and others will welcome anyone who would like to participate no matter how young or what they believe) depend on the person celebrating the communion.

However, if you know of a decision that changed the one from 1972 I'd be interested to know.

How would you describe the form of worship that Meghan will become used to?

Tere is a bit of leeway as the Anglican church is a "broad church" and some clergy would be OK to welcome a non baptised person.. taking communion, if they felt it was a step towards formally being baptised and part of the church. however the rule is that you are supposed to be at least baptised and usually confirmed...
and there are certanly plenty of ANglo catholic churches around my area, so I wouldn't say that it is fading away...

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Denville

Tere is a bit of leeway as the Anglican church is a "broad church" and some clergy would be OK to welcome a non baptised person.. taking communion, if they felt it was a step towards formally being baptised and part of the church. however the rule is that you are supposed to be at least baptised and usually confirmed...
and there are certanly plenty of ANglo catholic churches around my area, so I wouldn't say that it is fading away...

There are parishes but attendance is at record lows across the board. It's quite something to consider than all these centuries after the reformation, Roman Catholicism is now the biggest Christian denomination in the UK and boasts around a 65% share of regular Sunday worship among English Christians whereas the Church of England accounts for just 1%. It sometimes fluctuates of course but not by much.

[Osipi]

This is exactly what I meant by the congregations of different denominations and even different parishes being a "social construct". Its a group of people that do things in certain ways that they agree with. Religions are formed by the people, for the people and none of them can actually profess to being the "true" way. Everyone finds their own "truth" and sometimes a group of people that resonate with that "truth".

None of them are better than the other or more pleasing in the eyes of their God than the other. Its basically a form of expressing one's communion with one's Creator. The person that seeks solitude and contemplation under a Bodhi tree is no less spiritual than one that worships and receives communion at the same service as the Queen.

People go where they're comfortable going. Its all a matter of personal choice. Then again, there are organizations that demand that one follow their "truth" like they do. We've seen too much of this in the previous years with this type of misguided thinking that has corrupted a beautiful religion into a "my way or the highway" that has resulted in some very violent and deadly attacks against humanity.

[M. Payton]

That is an absolutely brilliant comment my dear, you hit the nail on the head with that comment. We do think alike in most things and this is a big one for us. Way to go......

[Somebody]

Sounds like we all agree that the Anglican church is rather broad, so how a service is conducted varies widely. If communion is held the CoE rule is that only baptized people might partake but some celebrants might break that rule.

The services the BRF attend are most likely traditional but not 'high church'. I would hesitate to call their services 'low church' as the clergy is wearing their vestments and I expect the liturgy to be followed (although not all services they attend are Holy Communion), so it seems somewhere in between.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I think there's been some misunderstanding as to what I put in my original post on this. I'm not suggesting that Meghan will find worship with the Royal Family strange, I'm suggesting that some Anglicans would find the way the Royal Family worships to be strange given the variation of worship which is offered across the UK in the one denomination.

Ah okay gotcha! Thanks!




LaRae

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Sounds like we all agree that the Anglican church is rather broad, so how a service is conducted varies widely. If communion is held the CoE rule is that only baptized people might partake but some celebrants might break that rule.

The services the BRF attend are most likely traditional but not 'high church'. I would hesitate to call their services 'low church' as the clergy is wearing their vestments and I expect the liturgy to be followed (although not all services they attend are Holy Communion), so it seems somewhere in between.

yes. I imagine that Meghan if she becomes a regular church goer will go with what the RF's taste in worship is.. Or she may decide that she prefers say High church, and chooses that as her general preferred type of Worship. however when with the RF, she'll attned the services the queen attends, such as Church of Scotland when in Balmoral etc.

[principessa]

Heaven forbid to let this happen:

Meghan has "only" a fiancé visa for the United Kingdom. That means that she has to be married to a British citizen within six months.

What would happen to her if the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh or the Prince of Wales dies and the wedding will be postponed because of the mouring period? Has she to leave the United Kingdom then back to Toronto or could she remain in the United Kingdom?

But nonetheless Heaven forbid to let this happen!!! I would like to see the Queen looking proud on her Prince Henry and his Meghan.

[Osipi]

What most people are forgetting though is that the fiance' visa that states they must marry within six months also has a rider that they can apply for an extension to the visa with a reasonable reason for doing so.

I think any death in the family of either parties applying would definitely classify as being a valid reason for postponing a wedding. For any couple and not just Harry and Meghan.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by principessa

Heaven forbid to let this happen:

Meghan has "only" a fiancé visa for the United Kingdom. That means that she has to be married to a British citizen within six months.

What would happen to her if the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh or the Prince of Wales dies and the wedding will be postponed because of the mouring period? Has she to leave the United Kingdom then back to Toronto or could she remain in the United Kingdom?

But nonetheless Heaven forbid to let this happen!!! I would like to see the Queen looking proud on her Prince Henry and his Meghan.

The fiancée visa can be extended if there are justifiable reasons why they weren’t able to get married in the 6 months. I think it would be safe to say “my fiancé’s grandmother, the Queen, died and the country went into mourning” is a valid enough reason.

That said, Queen Mary died March 24, 1953, and the Queen’s coronation still went ahead just over 2 months later. Queen Mary had asked that the coronation not be delayed if she died. I doubt that would happen if the Queen died before May, but it might be different if the DoE died.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by principessa

Heaven forbid to let this happen:

Meghan has "only" a fiancé visa for the United Kingdom. That means that she has to be married to a British citizen within six months.

What would happen to her if the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh or the Prince of Wales dies and the wedding will be postponed because of the mouring period? Has she to leave the United Kingdom then back to Toronto or could she remain in the United Kingdom?

But nonetheless Heaven forbid to let this happen!!! I would like to see the Queen looking proud on her Prince Henry and his Meghan.

As was discussed in the other threads. There are things that can happen that would be justified reason for extension. Death in family would be a good reason for any couple. However, the uproar over William having to possibly miss a football game probably wouldn't be justified reason as any other couple would be laughed at for using the groom's brother have to attend a football game as a reason. They seem to be dead set on doing this as if she's marrying Joe Schmo, so that's that.

[Princess Squirrel]

There also wouldn't be any reason why, if absolutely necessary, she couldn't apply for another Fiancée visa. From the US of course. My husband had two. In those days Fiancé visas weren't multiple entry. He got one and came to the UK in June or July 1998. But as we weren't getting married until 3 October, we later decided that it was a bit silly him sitting around when he could be earning money towards the wedding. So he went back to Boston and got a temp job. He then had to get another Fiancé visa. It was within the 6 months of the initial visa, but they were just single entry then. I think they realised it was too restrictive because not long after they changed it to multiple entry. Hence Meghan and Harry being able to pop back over the pond for a visit with Meghan's mom before Christmas.

[Cocoasneeze]

Meghan and Harry don't seem to want to extend the fiancé visa, and here's hoping, that there won't be any reason why they should.

[Princess Squirrel]

Yes I'm sure we all hope that everybody connected to the wedding stays healthy.

[CyrilVladisla]

Meghan will be getting a new husband and a new surname.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meghan-ma...063507585.html

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Meghan will be getting a new husband and a new surname.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meghan-ma...063507585.html

Leave it to yahoo, not only not news but incorrect at that.

Mountbatten-Windsor is only used by male-line members WITHOUT a royal title. Unless Harry is giving up his royal status, he and his wife will not use Mountbatten-Windsor. When a surname is required, they will use their designation. If Duke and Duchess of Sussex, will use Harry Sussex. As will their kids (like George's school bag with name George Cambridge).

It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

[Osipi]

What you explained is true, Countessmeout, but should something happen, say in France, and Harry and Meghan had to file a legal lawsuit, it would be filed as Henry Mountbatten-Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle. In France, Kate had to use her maiden name for that lawsuit about invasion of privacy.

Harry will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor if and when a legal surname is required and his royal titles are not recognized.

[FashionMaven]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Meghan will be getting a new husband and a new surname.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meghan-ma...063507585.html

This line made me chuckle: Meghan's credit cards and driver's license, however, will show her title as her name, Koenig explains.

Is this even true?