Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

(...) My point here is that, even if a legal requirement is not in place, there is an institutional expectation that the wife of a senior prince would convert. As I also mentioned before, Maxima Zorreguieta was the most signifcant example of a royal bride who tested the effectiveness of the lack of a legal requirement when she openly declined to convert to the Dutch Reformed faith. Still, she was required to marry in the Protestant church (she diidn't have a Catholic wedding) and to baptize and raise her daughters in the PKN (Amalia is even attending a denominational High School now).

I fully agree with all that you said (shorted it for readability), just a small correction on/addition to your final point. The school that Amalia attends is not officially linked to a specific denomination. It is 'Christian' (which should be interpreted as protestant - but there are various protestant churches in the Netherlands although the PKN is the largest) but not in any formal way linked to the PKN.

[jacqui24]

Is it really that big of a deal if a girl just decided she wants to join her husband's faith? I mean really?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I totally agree with all you've said but I don't think there ever has been an institutional expectation in the British Royal Family, even prior to a change in the law. When Prince Alfred married the Grand Duchess Marie, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican. Indeed, the pair were married in the Winter Palace and not an Anglican church. When Princess Marina married Prince George, there was no expectation that she would become an Anglican either. She remained Greek Orthodox, though she was married in an Anglican church. The present Duchess of Kent left the Anglican communion and became a Roman Catholic, a matter which caused no rift or division within the Royal Family because it wasn't seen as being a rule that she absolutely had to be a member of the Anglican communion.

Socially perhaps, years ago, that expectation existed from the general public. However nowadays, barely 1% of the population attend regular Anglican services and I don't think anyone among the Great British public really cares if Meghan is an Anglican or not. The Queen may, the Archbishop of Canterbury may, Prince Harry may. But it's not an obligation or expectation from the institution and never has been.

If the Queen, the head of the institution expects it, wouldn't that be the very definition of an institutional expectation?

I do think the situation in previous times was a little different from nowadays. Previously the expectation was that they married someone of royal blood - and that automatically meant that they wouldn't be Anglican. As the Catholic vs Anglican had been a huge issue in the past, it was explicitly forbidden to marry a Catholic (to ensure that the family would remain Anglican!) - only very recently has the ban on 'marrying' a Catholic been lifted but the family is still expected to be Anglican and joining the Catholic church still means exclusion from the line of succession. So, while it is now allowed to marry a Catholic (which Meghan isn't), the ideal is still that a bride or groom joins the Anglican Church - I would call that an expectation.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

It's important to note that whilst the Catholic church may have recognised any baptism Meghan may have had as a child (and we know now she has never been baptised, at least not in the trinitarian tradition), she would only have been allowed to receive communion if she was confirmed according to the Roman Rite - that is, she had been given all the Sacraments of Initiation as defined in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

You have your sacraments confused.

In the Catholic Church one must have made their First Penance & Reconcilation (Confession) and First Holy Communion prior to participating in the Eucharist at Mass regularly.
Those take place generally in 2nd or 3rd grade.

Confirmation can occur between ages 7 and 16 but usually around age 12 or 13, but is not necessary to take communion.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Any children Harry and Meghan have will be baptised as Anglicans so I can see how she would want to belong to the same church as the rest of her family. It makes good sense to me, especially as she has a Christian background. I hope that she takes comfort from it and feels at home. But then I hope that for her regardless of religion. It must be very difficult to be so far from home in a strange new land where everybody wants to know every minute detail about your life.

Culturally she might have a Christian background (and some people indeed think that everyone in Europe and North and South American must be Christian as that is the dominant religion) but as she has never been even a member of a church, it seems wishful thinking to say that she has a Christian background. Her background is non-religious - growing up within a culture that is/was dominated by Christianity; that would be a more accurate description in my book.

And whether Meghan joins the CoE out of conviction or out of respect for tradition; I am quite sure a lot of people do the last - and in my recent talks with an Anglican priest that was his expectation: they (the younger generation) come to church for the rituals and maybe a few will at some point in their lives become active believers and church-goers - and he was perfectly fine with that...

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

You have your sacraments confused.

In the Catholic Church one must have made their First Penance & Reconcilation (Confession) and First Holy Communion prior to participating in the Eucharist at Mass regularly.
Those take place generally in 2nd or 3rd grade.

Confirmation can occur between ages 7 and 16 but usually around age 12 or 13, but is not necessary to take communion.

Apologies, I should have been more clear in my post, I meant confirmation for those baptised in another Christian denomination as a form of reception into the church. One can be baptised a protestant but be confirmed in the Roman Catholic Church as a form of initiation.

If the Queen, the head of the institution expects it, wouldn't that be the very definition of an institutional expectation?

No. For one thing we don't know that she expects it but the Queen has no authority over doctrine within the Church of England. She may expect it as a grandmother, as head of the family and that's about all the weight it carries. If it was expected by the institution, George V would have insisted Princess Marina become an Anglican. Victoria would have insisted Grand Duchess Marie become an Anglican. Whilst personally they may have indicated a preference, formally they set no obligation.

[Lady Reem]

Originally Posted by Curryong

She will be baptised and confirmed in the Chuch of England. Before I was confirmed in my early teens I couldn't receive the sacrament at my local church, an extraordinarily important part of the Anglican service. Nor presumably could Kate, who did not seek to be confirmed until she was in her late 20s and about to become engaged.

Bet she and other royal brides weren’t subjected to the same aggressive nagging questions about their religious habits. Or motivations for marrying into royalty. Or why they sought to get confirmed just as they were about to get engaged and married and not before.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by Lady Reem

Bet she and other royal brides weren’t subjected to the same aggressive nagging questions about their religious habits. Or motivations for marrying into royalty. Or why they sought to get confirmed just as they were about to get engaged and married and not before.

In all fairness yes it was discussed as I recall about Kate...however I don't think the BRF have been in this situation for a long time. The new bride not being baptized or confirmed both. For some folks it's kinda shocking. Everyone will settle down once it sinks in.


LaRae

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

No. For one thing we don't know that she expects it but the Queen has no authority over doctrine within the Church of England. She may expect it as a grandmother, as head of the family and that's about all the weight it carries. If it was expected by the institution, George V would have insisted Princess Marina become an Anglican. Victoria would have insisted Grand Duchess Marie become an Anglican. Whilst personally they may have indicated a preference, formally they set no obligation.

I thought we were talking about the institution of the monarchy (previous posters also mentioned other royal families where the same mechanisms applied) - not of the Church of England. Of course the CoE cannot make any demands on the future members of the family - they can refuse to marry someone to someone but that's about it.

Expectations change over time The current expectations (which is very different from an obligation - so maybe we just look at from a different angle as you consider an expectation an obligation and I consider it a strong preference - and a 'personally indicated preference from the queen' is rather hard to ignore I would imagine, unless you have very good reasons to do so; and I am sure she would be interested to learn more about them) aren't the same as 50 years ago or 100 years ago; they evolve over time and the members and future members 'respond' to the expectations of their time - whether explicitly expressed or implied.

What other 'institutional expectations' can we think of that Meghan most likely will adhere to (or that she might question)?

[Gaudete]

Personally speaking, I don't much care whether she's a Christian, a Hindu or a Jedi Knight. As long as she makes Prince Harry happy and the Queen approves of their marriage then that's all I really need to know about her. She seems very intelligent, very kind and very eager to get to know her new country and it's customs. I'll be very proud to see her marry into the Royal Family.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

Personally speaking, I don't much care whether she's a Christian, a Hindu or a Jedi Knight. As long as she makes Prince Harry happy and the Queen approves of their marriage then that's all I really need to know about her. She seems very intelligent, very kind and very eager to get to know her new country and it's customs. I'll be very proud to see her marry into the Royal Family.

I think she ticked both boxes

[Gaudete]

She absolutely has. I think it's very sad (but to be expected of course) that she is being put under such scrutiny. There's a definite air of inverted snobbery in some corners of the British press which I find a very sad reflection of the British people- and not really very representative. Certainly everybody I have spoken to couldn't be more delighted for them and she seems to have impressed most folks with her interview appearance.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

She absolutely has. I think it's very sad (but to be expected of course) that she is being put under such scrutiny. There's a definite air of inverted snobbery in some corners of the British press which I find a very sad reflection of the British people- and not really very representative. Certainly everybody I have spoken to couldn't be more delighted for them and she seems to have impressed most folks with her interview appearance.

I actually haven't seen that much of a controversy over her being baptized and confirmed in CoE in the media. They reported it, but not in their typically snobbery way for the most part. Honestly, for the mainstream, the fact that she has the backing of the royal family now has definitely changed some tunes to more positive. There are still some snobbery, but not nearly as noticeable as before.

[Lady Nimue]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

She's not giving up her American citizenship--she plans to have dual citizenship.

I like that. Means her children will have dual citizenship. How nice.

P.S. I say 'ont'. I have always found the 'ant' an outlier.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

I like that. Means her children will have dual citizenship. How nice.

P.S. I say 'ont'. I have always found the 'ant' an outlier.

Is that automatic or do you need to apply for American citizenship if one of your parents is a US citizen and you are born on foreign soil?

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

It's okay, we can disagree. All good. It is the mind which is the battleground in our modern times after all (tangled up with emotions).



Here I will rely on my Jesuit education in these matters (keeping in mind that I come from the liberal stream of Catholicism, that has been eclipsed in recent decades by the conservatives). Most all of what you mention are not essential doctrines of the Catholic Church. Most arose out of political expediency and have become ingrained traditions.



Can't get into the history of this (obviously) but in no way is the pope infallible, and you can be a 'good Catholic' without accepting that piece of political theater. There is this little slight-of-hand about speaking 'ex cathedra' but most all of these accretions of power to the pope are rooted in political/military/economic history related to the fact that Christians took over the structure of the Roman Empire's administrative network.



Yes, he's good, but not good enough, as he's not going up against the conservative element regarding women priests, and married clergy. Maybe he knows the limits he can push. (BTW unmarried clergy pertains only to the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and a sprinkling of others; John Paul II forced the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church to dispense with married clergy in the 80's).

I'm acquainted with issues between the two churches and the differences are minor. Again, doctrinal hair-splitting. IMO.



I would offer that anyone who has encountered the Christ Being (entered the Christ Consciousness) is Christian. You will 'know' such by their actions (and words are actions of a kind). You will know them by their manifest love. A true Christian is not bound by doctrines and 'correct words and practices', mental constructs. It is this very earth-bound material thinking and doing that the Christ came to release, into a global cosmopolitanism.





A 'true Christian' is not for me to judge, that I know. My 'job' is to love and accept others with compassion, recognizing that the Christ appears in all garbs: when I was hungry you fed me, when I was homeless you housed me, when I was lonely you sat with me. The Christ is in all of us and is not limited by a word, a name, a doctrinal nicety. JMO.

Everything thing I mentioned (with the exception of the ordination of women and married clergy which as you correctly posited are Traditions) are indeed essential doctrines of the Catholic Faith, taken directly from Scripture and the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. They are certainly not my subjective opinions.

The Mass is at the center of Catholic life, as is belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Once a person who calls himself Catholic rejects those things he can still call himself a Christian, but not a Catholic Christian. This is, again, not my subjective opinion ..it is the official teaching of the Church.

I think your explanation about the nature of Christ is interesting (where is it from?)but again...it is not something that I can locate in Scripture, the Catechism, or the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.(Cyprian,Polycarp, Augustine, John Chrysostom..a few of whom were taught directly by the Apostles themselves.)

According to all of the above, Christ-the Eternal Word of God-came into the world to reconcile all men to God and make it possible for them to share in eternal life.

I was not born when Vatican II began and so I have no memory of the pre Vatican II Church. I consider myself a John Paul II Catholic-to the left of center or liberal on many social matters, but conservative religiously.

This is because I have come to recognize the utter mayhem that has resulted out of Vatican II...confusion about what the Church teaches, rotten catechesis , the emptying out of seminaries and convents and the laity leaving the Church in droves to decide for themselves what Christianity means to them.

(not to say that some very good things did not come out of the Council as well).

Anyway, this is a fascinating subject but I realize that I have veered too far off topic. I apologize in advance to anyone who is offended.

[Biri]

Originally Posted by Lady Nimue

I like that. Means her children will have dual citizenship. How nice.

P.S. I say 'ont'. I have always found the 'ant' an outlier.

Autumn Philips has retained her Canadian citizenship, so Meghan can do it also with her American.

[jacqui24]

Just to clarify the dual citizenship reporting. The initial reporting was somewhat confusing due to interpretation by reporters. However, the later reporting by them are pretty uniform that it's unclear whether or not she'll keep dual citizenship. She'll remain a US citizen while waiting for her British citizen. I believe different news outlet have said the later official clarification is it hasn't been decided at this point.

[Osipi]

To put all of this discussion into a neat little nutshell, there's a saying that I've found to be a truism. "When the student is ready, the Teacher shall appear".

This is what really matters. Meghan has decided, of her own free will, that she wishes to be baptized and confirmed in the Church of England. She isn't doing this without conscious thought. Its her time, on her own personal journey, to focus on her own spirituality and make a commitment not only to Harry in marriage but to her Creator. its beautiful.

I've also noticed that reading through several pages that has appeared since I decided to actually get some sleep, that its been a very respectful, intelligent back and forth discussion between a lot of people that had one thing in mind. The Christos. The beliefs and how it all works together. And.... we know what is said about that kind of thing too. Wherever two or more.....

Maybe we're doing what more in this world should be doing. No matter what, one thing is self evident. When all of us are watching Harry and Meghan take their vows at the altar, we can pretty much be assured that the blessing will be a real one that will hopefully always be a part of Harry and Meghan's married life and be their "strength and stay" through the better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Biri

Autumn Philips has retained her Canadian citizenship, so Meghan can do it also with her American.

A relevant difference to me is that Canada is one of the realms within the Commonwealth of which the Queen is also Head of State. So, it would have been an affront to ask a new member of the Royal Family of Canada to give up her Canadian citizenship.