Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was baptised and then confirmed (in my early teens) into the C-of -E. Before confirmation I was unable to take the sacrament. It may well be that Meghan doesn't want to be an outsider in the ranks of the BRF, wants to take sacrament with Harry and the rest of his family, and be at one with them. There are possible future children to consider as well. So it might be a partly pragmatic decision on Meghan's part. If however, after Meghan is instructed in the tenets of the Anglican religion and still wishes to be baptised and those instructing her are convinced of her sincerity, belief in the Church's teachings and her religious faith, then surely that can only be to the good,
 
Last edited:
I was baptised and then confirmed (in my early teens) into the C-of -E. Before confirmation I was unable to take the sacrement. It may well be that Meghan doesn't want to be an outsider in the ranks of the BRF, wants to take sacrement with Harry and the rest of his family, and be at one with them. There are possible future children to consider as well. So it might be a partly pragmatic decision on Meghan's part. If however, after Meghan is instructed in the tenets of the Anglican religion and still wishes to be baptised and those instructing her are convinced of her sincerity and religious faith, then surely that can only be to the good,

Yes :flowers: Especially if and when they have children, who will be raised in the faith. And as you said she will be expected to attend services and such with the family. Perhaps she doesn't want to feel set apart, not being able to take part in certain aspects with the others.
 
At the core of Christianity is the Christos, Love. One does not have to utter the name of the teacher/rabbi Jesus. That is materialistic.

Sorry, but you are quite wrong on that definition. Christianity solely centers around Jesus Christ and worship of him and his divinity. "Christos" is a Greek word that translates as "to anoint". That is from a translation of a Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), which also means "anointed". It's where we also get the word Messiah to refer to Jesus. A person very much has to utter the name of Jesus in order to profess belief in the faith. Otherwise, it's not Christianity, it's just a generic religion. Read Romans 10:9.

If you're referring to love, perhaps you meant the Greek word "agape", which is defined as a holy, all-encompassing kind of love from us to God and from God to us.
 
I think its heart warming for Meghan to be going through this as an adult and of her own free will. Many times people don't give a lot of serious thought to what they believe or think about practicing and strengthening their spirituality because, frankly, life gets in the way. Coming into a marriage and making a solemn vow with another person and committing oneself body, mind and spirit to another takes some serious thought.

It seems to me that not only is Meghan embracing Harry's lifestyle and is willing to join him side by side in the family "Firm", but she's also taking these vows serious enough to want to fully embrace and worship side by side with her husband, his family and eventually her own family. I don't think she's going into any of this lightly but rather going into it very seriously with her eyes wide open. Love does conquer all.
 
On Meghan's decision to be baptised and confirmed, it's important to note the role of the individual parish priest in the decision.

When a couple (who may not be regular church goers) ask to be married according to the Anglican Rite, the General Synod has allowed a certain degree of autonomy to the celebrant of the sacrament which you won't find in the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Churches. Some parish priests will marry a couple in an Anglican church if only one of them is baptised and confirmed, others will insist both are baptised, some may insist that both must be baptised and confirmed. And some will marry a couple if they make a commitment to attend church services for 8-12 weeks before their wedding even if they haven't been baptised. The latter is rare but it is an option open to Anglican clergy.

Westminster Abbey and St George's Chapel are royal peculiars but even as Head of the Church, the Queen cannot insist that her Bishops and Archbishops give permission for things that other clergy may refuse (and vice versa). Remember that the Duchess of Cambridge was confirmed before her marriage and so I imagine that the celebrant (the Archbishop of Canterbury) personally requires a couple to be baptised and confirmed before he will perform their wedding ceremony according to the Anglican Rite.

It's also worth noting that Meghan may already be baptised but that her baptism isn't recognised by the General Synod. Whilst the Anglican Church recognises most baptisms, it doesn't apply to every denomination and so this may have been a factor in her decision too. Having said all that, despite the Church of England being quite an insignificant body in Britain today, it remains the state church and Meghan will be expected to worship in the Anglican tradition for the rest of her life. It is therefore sensible that she should want to become a full member of that communion even if it isn't required by the Archbishop of Canterbury as a parish priest or celebrant. We know that some exceptions have been made in the past (Princess Marina) but in this instance, I believe that it's a pragmatic decision on Meghan's part whether she fully embraces Anglicanism or not.

Also, there is no formal catechesis in the Anglican communion as the Church of England has no catechism or clearly defined structure for the reception of new members. It has guidelines and conventions but again, there is more freedom for the individual cleric to interpret this for his congregation than say the Roman Catholic Church would. For this reason, it isn't seen as 'conversion' to Anglicanism but as 'reception' into the Church if one already identifies as a Christian. Roman Catholicism applies the same terminology but has a far more formal structure for those seeking reception into the church. Some Anglican churches will offer communion to anyone who wishes to receive it, some may even offer baptism at Easter or Pentecost to anybody who wants to be baptised without requiring any formal education in the faith. At the same time, Anglo-Catholic churches (parishes in communion with the Church of England but which adopt parts of the Roman Rite) would insist on a more formal education process.

So this is probably half requirement, half personal choice.
 
Last edited:
"We know that some exceptions have been made in the past (Princess Marina)"

Did Princess Marina remain a Greek Orthodox Christian?
 
"We know that some exceptions have been made in the past (Princess Marina)"

Did Princess Marina remain a Greek Orthodox Christian?

At the wedding of the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina in 1934, two ceremonies were performed; one according to the Anglican Rite and another according to the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church. The Church of England would have recognised Marina's baptism and confirmation into the Greek Orthodox Church as being valid and therefore not an obstacle to a church wedding according to the Anglican Rite.

Princess Marina attended both Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches throughout her life and her funeral service was conducted jointly by the Archbishop of Canterbury and Archimandrite Gregory Theodorus of the Greek Orthodox Church. Again, this would have been regarded as perfectly valid by the Anglican Church which is a more ecumenical body than say the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Do any of you here think other than the Queen and DoE, that most of the BRF take their faith seriously?

We all see them on the Church walk at the obvious holidays. Do any of them, other than the Queen, actually attend services on a regular basis?


LaRae
I think that Charles does, certainly. and the older royals.. not sure about Harry.
 
And btw, can something explain to me what is the difference between Anglican and Protestant in terms of actual beliefs? If there are fundamental religious belief change, what's the problem. Why can't she decide to join the Church of England and worship there?

Anglicanism is a branch of Protestantism actually, although some Protestants do not consider the Anglican Church a truly Reformed church.

The spectrum of beliefs in the Anglican Communion is very broad and not at all uniform, ranging from the Anglo-Catholic branch, which seeks a rapprochment with the Roman Catholic doctrine, to the so-called Evangelical branch, which is more traditionally Protestant. Generally speaking though, the historic Anglican doctrine documents are heavily influenced by Calvinism and are therefore distinctively Protestant, but the rites and the order of service in the church are more similar to Catholic rites than in other Protestant denominations. In fact, especially after the Catholic church switched to mass in vernacular languages in the 1960s, an Anglican Sunday eucharist service is only subtly different from an English-language Sunday mass. Furthermore, Anglican churches are also episcopal churches with ordained bishops, whom the Anglicans claim to be in apostolic succession although that claim is rejected by the Roman Catholic church, which does not recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations.

The point about Meghan though is that she is not a Protestant who is converting to Anglicanism, as Mary, who was Presbyterian, and Henrik or Marie, who were Catholic, converted to Lutheranism when they joined the Danish royal family. Instead, Meghan is a non-Christian (she was never baptized) who is converting to Christianity and joining the Anglican branch of Christianity in the process, which is a much bigger deal.

Besides, what seems to raise suspicions about the hypocrisy of royals when it comes to religion is that they all seem to convert when joining a Royal Family who is associated with a different denomination, such as the Danish cases I mentioned above, or Queen Sofia becoming Catholic when she married Juan Carlos, or Anne-Marie becoming Greek Orthodox, etc etc The exception seems to be Máxima, who didn't convert to the Dutch Reformed faith and remained Catholic after marrying W-A, which I see as a plus for her.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but you are quite wrong on that definition. Christianity solely centers around Jesus Christ and worship of him and his divinity. "Christos" is a Greek word that translates as "to anoint". That is from a translation of a Hebrew word מָשִׁיחַ (mashiyach), which also means "anointed". It's where we also get the word Messiah to refer to Jesus. A person very
If you're referring to love, perhaps you meant the Greek word "agape", which is defined as a holy, all-encompassing kind of love from us to God and from God to us.

True, Christos or the Christ is a Greek word which means the anointed one. it is certainly not "love" and Jesus is at the cenetre of Christianity...
 
In fact, especially after the Catholic church switched to mass in vernacular languages in the 1960s, an Anglican Sunday eucharist service is only subtly different from an English-language Sunday mass. Furthermore, Anglican churches are also episcopal churches with ordained bishops, whom the Anglicans claim to be in apostolic succession although that claim is rejected by the Roman Catholic church, which does not recognize the validity of Anglican ordinations.

In some ways yes but in others, no. The churches have more similarities nowadays but even with the changes to the liturgy made by the Second Vatican Council (and changes to the Order of the Mass since), they remain very different - at least in England.

The biggest difference between the two remains the nature and purpose of worship. Anglican services will usually only offer communion one Sunday a month. This is the case in the services the Queen regularly attends but in no way could the Queen be seen as worshipping in an Anglo-Catholic tradition (where communion is offered at every service). There is no requirement for reconciliation before the service as there is with the Catholic Church, creeds are different, the structure of the liturgy is different and the whole purpose of the Mass according to the Roman Rite is the celebration of the Eucharist which is absent from the Anglican Rite.

In most English Anglican Churches, communion is given at the discretion of the priest which relates to my earlier point. Whilst the Roman Catholic Church is far more centralised in it's doctrine, the Anglicans have a sort of unofficial motto which defines their approach; "All may, some should, none must". If the Dean of Windsor allowed it, for example, Meghan could receive communion with other members of the Royal Family whether she was baptised or not. This wouldn't be the case if the Royal Family were Roman Catholic and some Anglicans who visit Catholic churches in the UK can get very frosty when they're refused communion.

To pick up an earlier point, this is why the marriage of the Duke of Kent and Princess Marina was celebrated according to two different rites even though the Anglican Church at the time was far more friendly in it's relations towards the Orthodox than it was towards Catholics. By allowing a co-celebration of the liturgy, it allowed Marina to receive the sacrament as part of her marriage which the Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) church requires but the Anglican Rite does not. For the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, the Eucharist must be included to make the celebration of the sacrament of marriage valid - which is why divorcees can't remarry in Catholic or Orthodox churches. They aren't in a state of grace, cannot receive and therefore cannot enter into a valid marriage according to the rules of the church.

Some Anglo-Catholics do follow the example of Rome in this example and so it would be hard to tell the difference in some of their services but certainly the vast majority of Anglican churches in England have what is known as a "low church" approach that really would be seen as very different indeed to a Catholic Mass.

It was interesting to me that even after the changes to the law, there was an element of suspicion raised by some at the very idea that Meghan might be a Roman Catholic. Perhaps it was simply that if Meghan was a Catholic and had married her first husband in a Roman Catholic Church, her subsequent marriage to Prince Harry in an Anglican Church wouldn't be seen as valid by the Roman Catholic Church. But most likely it's a hangover that many Brits seem to have from the Reformation and the events that followed it which still makes Catholicism something to be wary of - even though Catholics now outnumber Anglicans in the UK!
 
Regarding the [overblown] FUSS over Ms Markles Baptism prior to marriage..

The first Queen Elizabeth rightly said "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls".

I would say 'By their works shall ye know them', and certainly this young couple have shown [both individually in the past] and in their stated aims for their future, MULTIPLE examples of good intentions and deeds.
That they choose to do so within the framework of the Church of England can/should be no surprise to anyone, and to accuse either of them of bad faith is rather odd, and without evidence or foundation..
 
Last edited:
but Meg isn't a Roman Catholic. I don't think shes' been baptised but it appears she did go to Catholic School.. and she has had a previous wedding which was problaby not a Christian one?
However I admit that the fact that she seems to be going from "no particular relgion" to Anglicanism in a few months, makes me a bit uneasy. I'll assume she's sincere in wanting to convert. But its not like someone who has been brught up RC or in some other denomination deciding to consider a change and learning about the C of E...
 
but Meg isn't a Roman Catholic. I don't think shes' been baptised but it appears she did go to Catholic School.. and she has had a previous wedding which was problaby not a Christian one?
However I admit that the fact that she seems to be going from "no particular relgion" to Anglicanism in a few months, makes me a bit uneasy. I'll assume she's sincere in wanting to convert. But its not like someone who has been brught up RC or in some other denomination deciding to consider a change and learning about the C of E...

Again I would stress the importance of words like "conversion". Meghan is (and supposedly always has been) a Christian, she's simply being received into a new Christian communion. This is reception, not conversion. The same would be true if she was an Anglican becoming a Catholic. The Duchess of Kent didn't convert to Roman Catholicism, she was received into the Roman Catholic Church as she was already a Christian by practise if not by sacraments recognised as valid by Rome. If Meghan was Jewish or Muslim however then yes, she would be converting.
 
Denville her first wedding was on a beach in Jamaica ...her first husband was Jewish however it doesn't appear to have been a religious wedding.

Her parents, evidently, are Protestant (dad is Episcopal).


LaRae
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again I would stress the importance of words like "conversion". Meghan is (and supposedly always has been) a Christian, she's simply being received into a new Christian communion. This is reception, not conversion. The same would be true if she was an Anglican becoming a Catholic. The Duchess of Kent didn't convert to Roman Catholicism, she was received into the Roman Catholic Church as she was already a Christian by practise if not by sacraments recognised as valid by Rome. If Meghan was Jewish or Muslim however then yes, she would be converting.

is she? My understanding was that she hadn't been baptised or brought up in any Christian denomination... Generally speaking the C of E would not ask for someone to be baptised if they had been baptised already in most other Christian denominations.
 
is she? My understanding was that she hadn't been baptised or brought up in any Christian denomination... Generally speaking the C of E would not ask for someone to be baptised if they had been baptised already in most other Christian denominations.

As I explained above, this really is up to the individual parish priest. The Church of England doesn't have solid blanket structures in place as other churches do. Meghan's father is an Episcopalian I believe and had she been baptised in that communion, the Church of England would absolutely recognise it. But just because she hasn't been baptised, doesn't mean that she doesn't consider herself to be a Christian. I know many people who consider themselves to be Christians who don't belong to a formal church structure of haven't been baptised, regardless of what my view on their status is. Neither does it mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury as the celebrant has insisted on her baptism and confirmation. It's likely but we will never know for certain.

I wouldn't be wary or uncomfortable with her decision though. However she's come to it, it's a matter between Meghan and God. And really none of our business.
 
is she? My understanding was that she hadn't been baptised or brought up in any Christian denomination... Generally speaking the C of E would not ask for someone to be baptised if they had been baptised already in most other Christian denominations.

I know for Catholics (I'm one), the only time they 're-baptize' is when it is known the Trinitarian formula is not used. There are 2 or 3 religious groups who don't use this during baptism. However seeing that her parents are both Protestant, and the COE is baptizing her, I'm guessing she has never been.

Not all Protestant groups believe in infant baptism, the person must be of 'age' before it's done.



LaRae
 
I think in the case of the Church of England, the only baptisms they don't recognise (and I could be mistaken here) are baptisms performed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses or the Unitarians. Because as Pranter says, they're not trinitarian faiths.
 
I think in the case of the Church of England, the only baptisms they don't recognise (and I could be mistaken here) are baptisms performed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses or the Unitarians. Because as Pranter says, they're not trinitarian faiths.

Yep it's pretty much the same for the us, those are the 3 I'm aware of.


LaRae
 
Last edited:
I know for Catholics (I'm one), the only time they 're-baptize' is when it is known the Trinitarian formula is not used. There are 2 or 3 religious groups who don't use this during baptism. However seeing that her parents are both Protestant, and the COE is baptizing her, I'm guessing she has never been.

Not all Protestant groups believe in infant baptism, the person must be of 'age' before it's done.



LaRae
exactly. If she had been baptised already the C of E recognises most baptismal rites of other denominatons. so she almost certainly hasn't been... However it is possible that she will take instruction in the C of E and will become interested in it and it will be important to her...
 
She may have already been taking instruction too...afterall they have known they were headed to the altar for at least a year I'm guessing.


LaRae
 
I'm sure there would be instructions before becoming baptized. I've never heard of priests just baptize anyone without having some kind of instruction. Especially given the high profile nature in her case.

Plus, some are acting like she never was familiar with the religion and all of sudden adopting it. The truth is, she might not have been baptized or Catholic, but having gone to Catholic school, she's had religion classes regularly during her formative years. And yes, I do know Anglican church and Catholic church have differences, but the Bible is still the same.
 
The two religions are extremely close which is why ecumenically the joining of the two churches is always seen as very likely at some point. There are no real doctrinal differences, except for the papal infallibility issue and that is a recent addition (from 1800's) and can easily be amended (as every good Jesuit knows.;) ) I agree with Autumn Phillips and I do not consider myself 'one of the millions of very poorly catechized Catholics in the world'. Just saying. :flowers:

I strongly suspect, given Meghan's actions and words in her life, that she is a Christian. It is unlikely that anything in the Anglican Church is antithetical to the essential Christianity of her upbringing by her parents. 'By their works you shall know them.' :flowers:

Lady Nimue-

I enjoy your posts so much and admire you as well, so it pains me to disagree with you on the rare occasions that I do. I will try to stick to the important points so as not to veer too far off topic.

Anglicans and Catholics have a similar outward appearance in ritual and liturgy. But the few differences that do exist are profound game changers...how many Sacraments and what do they mean, ordination of female priests, the very nature of the priesthood, the Mass, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the biggest sticking point of all ... the primacy of the See of Rome.

It's true that the two Churches have come far since the Reformation, but we have miles to go. I am a little confused about "fixing" papal infallibility and what you mean by that. It is certainly not a "new addition". It was formally defined at Vatican I in 1870 but has been a belief of the Church from the very beginning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vatican_Council#Papal_infallibility

St Augustine referred to it as far back as the 5th century...."Roma Locuta Est-Causa Finita Est" (Rome has spoken, the matter is finished)
https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-is...tement-rome-has-spoken-the-matter-is-finished.

The current Pope Francis is a good Jesuit, but I doubt if even he will be able to resolve the fundamental differences that have separated the Anglican and Catholic communions for the last 500 years.

I agree that Meghan Markle has demonstrated a spirit of generosity and goodwill from the little that I know of her, but that does not mean she has lived a Christian life. The Dalai Lama-one of my heroes-has those qualities and is not a Christian and my(beloved) quasi-atheistic landlady does as well.

Those are human qualities, admirable ones true-but not necessarily limited to followers of Christ.

As another poster stated-a true Christian lives a Christocentric life with Jesus Christ and the reality of the Incarnation at the foundation of all he/she believes and for the way they conduct their lives.
 
Last edited:
Longtime lurker so hello. This discussion on Meghan and Christianity. The way I see it now there is confirmation that Meghan's parents are of the Protestant denomination, then so is Meghan. Also according to a newspaper report I read previously her close friend did say they both spent Sundays at university attending church and doing other family friendly stuff.

Very wrong to suggest she would have to convert to Christianity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One of the standard citizenship test questions facing Ms Markle asks where the wife of another rather famous royal called Henry had her head chopped off ?

Excellent sense of humour, our civil servants....
 
I'm sure there would be instructions before becoming baptized. I've never heard of priests just baptize anyone without having some kind of instruction. Especially given the high profile nature in her case.

Plus, some are acting like she never was familiar with the religion and all of sudden adopting it. The truth is, she might not have been baptized or Catholic, but having gone to Catholic school, she's had religion classes regularly during her formative years. And yes, I do know Anglican church and Catholic church have differences, but the Bible is still the same.

of course there would be a period of instruction, but just because she went to a Catholic school does not mean she received any instruction in that faith's beleifs, and yes there are differences. My husband attended a Catholic school as a child and didnt' as far as I can remember attend religious instructiotn. So she is problaby not at all familiar iwht the C of E.

Longtime lurker so hello. This discussion on Meghan and Christianity. The way I see it now there is confirmation that Meghan's parents are of the Protestant denomination, then so is Meghan. Also according to a newspaper report I read previously her close friend did say they both spent Sundays at university attending church and doing other family friendly stuff.

seems to me very unusual if she wasn't brought up as church attender, and wasn't formally initiated in any religion that she would attend church at University....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gaudete - Thank you for sharing your knowledge: most interesting!
 
And how do you suppose she is not a church goer? How would you know for certain?
 
Very wrong to suggest she would have to convert to Christianity.

I suppose it is not the right word. If someone is agnostic or atheist (I'm not saying Miss Markle is, I'm just making an example), and decides to become a Christian, what word should be used? Maybe "reception" into a Church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom