Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Lady Reem]

My parents are Christians and as an adult I consider myself a Christian though not yet baptised nor a regular church goer. Evangelical denomination and by the way I was christened as a baby.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

If you were christened, then you ARE indeed baptized.

If it was done using the Trinitarian formula as required by Scripture then there is no need to repeat it.

Just make your profession of Faith in your new chosen denomination.

 

[Lady Reem]

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?

Her parents are of the christian faith which means she was born a christian, so unless she has since converted to a different religion she is still of the christian faith, practicing or non-practising.

Nope there’s a difference between baptism and being christened.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I strongly disagree Lady Reem, but we are off topic.

 

[Lady Reem]

Not an expert on the Anglican or heavy religious stuff so I will leave it there.

 

[Denville]

Her parents are of the christian faith which means she was born a christian, so unless she has since converted to a different religion she is still of the christian faith, practicing or non-practising.

you are not BORN a Christian. you can be brought up in a relgion, and learn about it, but unless you formally join it, or make a profession of it.. then you're not a Christian. I don't get the impression that Megahn was brought up to any steady religious practice or instruction, she may have read up for herself, and learned a bit.. but I am sceptical that if she wasn't brought up in some religious discipline, ie some kind of church going, learning bout it at school or home, that she'd take to "church going" at University.

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?

if someone agnoistic or atheist chooses to become a Christian, then I would say Converted from "non relgion" into that particular religion...

 

[ladongas]

If someone chooses to affiliate with a religion, then I would not impose my opinion on her choice or reasons for making that choice.

I would also assume that the Archbishop of Canterbury, HM, Meghan and the G-d they worship are capable of making correct and legitimate decisions in this matter.

 

[Lady Reem]

you are not BORN a Christian. you can be brought up in a relgion, and learn about it, but unless you formally join it, or make a profession of it.. then you're not a Christian. I don't get the impression that Megahn was brought up to any steady religious practice or instruction, she may have read up for herself, and learned a bit.. but I am sceptical that if she wasn't brought up in some religious discipline, ie some kind of church going, learning bout it at school or home, that she'd take to "church going" at University.

And yet it was reported by a close friend of hers at uni that they both regularly attended church on Sundays. I will search for a link!

 

[Denville]

well its possible. but Uni is usually a time when young people tend to question or ditch religious belief and observance, if only temporarily....

 

[Lady Reem]

I’m very uncomfortable with ongoing attempts to cast her as someone who is so different from the norm. Her parents are of christian faith so it stands to reason their child was born a christian and taken to church at some point as a child, perhaps even frequently. In any case none of us here can be 100% sure either way. I wouldn’t cast aspersions about her on that basis.

 

[jacqui24]

And yet it was reported by a close friend of hers at uni that they both regularly attended church on Sundays. I will search for a link!

I remember reading that as well when relationship news first broke.

And really, is her converting to CoE THAT important to other people or offend them that much? This is between her and God.

 

[tihkon2]

Really, the last 3 pages of this thread are like a "look how devout I am" contest. Veeerrry cringe inducing.
Since Meghan's parents are both Protestant Christians
I would postulate that she's been raised at the very least with a working knowledge of Christianity. She went to Catholic school and apparently attended some church services during college. Now she's going to be formalizing her entrance into a Christian denomination.

Excellent. Good for her!

Any other response in my own opinion seems to be really unsettling and gross.

 

[Gaudete]

you are not BORN a Christian. you can be brought up in a relgion, and learn about it, but unless you formally join it, or make a profession of it.. then you're not a Christian. I don't get the impression that Megahn was brought up to any steady religious practice or instruction, she may have read up for herself, and learned a bit.. but I am sceptical that if she wasn't brought up in some religious discipline, ie some kind of church going, learning bout it at school or home, that she'd take to "church going" at University.

Whilst you're quite right to say that nobody is born with a particular faith, there are plenty of people who would consider themselves to be Christian and who do not subscribe to a structured formal process of initiation. It's key to remember that not all Christian churches are sacramental churches but one's status as a Christian would be seen within those traditions as perfectly valid.

 

[jacqui24]

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 saw that on Tom Wells's twitter yesterday. It was pretty funny. Another question I saw in an article was who is Elizabeth II's husband. I laughed at that too thinking about Meghan having to answer that question.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Yes, but it was most likely known as a good private school where many non-Catholic students attended. So, I am sure she heard many bible stories and most likely went to some services but was never baptized nor confirmed neither in the Catholic church nor in the Episcopal church.

Meghan attended Immaculate Heart High School, which is an elite all girls Catholic High school located right across the road from UCLA. It is predominately Catholic and quite expensive with a first rate curriculum.

But no, you don't have to be Catholic to attend, only able to pay the fees. Kim Kardashian attended.

 

[Lady Reem]

Unseen photos of Meghan Markle are revealed | Daily Mail Online

“He lived locally with his parents, who were both pastors, and she would have meals with his family at weekends and attend services at their church.
They also enjoyed cooking exotic meals together — Indian dishes were Meghan’s speciality — watching avant-garde theatre shows, and ‘just hanging out’.”

 

[Denville]

I can't get into that link Sorry, but It sound as if she had a friend or boyfriend who was religious, so it is possible that she wnet to church out of politeness.. At any rate I hope she does get something out of the C of E..

 

[Gaudete]

I’m very uncomfortable with ongoing attempts to cast her as someone who is so different from the norm. Her parents are of christian faith so it stands to reason their child was born a christian and taken to church at some point as a child, perhaps even frequently. In any case none of us here can be 100% sure either way. I wouldn’t cast aspersions about her on that basis.

I agree. It seems very uncharitable to expect her to prove her faith or pass some kind of religious test to see how genuine her intentions are. And not terribly Christian either. I don't remember this sort of commentary when the Duchess of Cambridge was confirmed prior to her marriage.

 

[Denville]

well I do. there were plenty of people saying that kate had no religious interest and was only getting confirmed to "fit in" with the RF.
I believe that Letizia Ortiz, the queen of Spain alos only got confirmed when she was engaged to Felipe...and I daresay there were comments about that as well

 

[Gaudete]

well I do. there were plenty of people saying that kate had no religious interest and was only getting confirmed to "fit in" with the RF.

I have to say that I have no recollection of that but if they did say that, it was quite a nasty stance to take. The fact that the Duchess was confirmed before her marriage suggests to me that in their role as parish priests, both Dr Rowan Williams and Dr Justin Welby are quite stringent in their requirements as celebrants. Were William and Kate or Harry and Meghan to marry in any small country church as ordinary citizens, they would have no problem in finding a vicar who wouldn't insist on such formalities.

Of course, both the Duchess of Cambridge and Meghan Markle could easily have refused and another celebrant could (and would) have been found who was willing to conduct the marriage. The fact that neither did refuse suggests to me a sign of true commitment not just to their private religious beliefs but to their husbands and future roles.

In the case of Queen Letizia, you're really comparing apples and oranges as the Roman Catholic Church has very different requirements to the Anglican Church when it comes to the sacrament of marriage unless a dispensation can be obtained. But that really isn't relevant to this discussion.

 

[Mbruno]

I’m very uncomfortable with ongoing attempts to cast her as someone who is so different from the norm. Her parents are of christian faith so it stands to reason their child was born a christian and taken to church at some point as a child, perhaps even frequently. In any case none of us here can be 100% sure either way. I wouldn’t cast aspersions about her on that basis.

The CoE recognizes baptisms performed by any other mainsteam Christian church and won't baptize someone again under those circumstances. So I think it is safe to assume that either Meghan has never been baptized before or, if she was, it was done in a non-mainstream Christian denomination using an improper (e.g. non-Trinitarian) formula, in which case the CoE, like the Roman Catholic church, would not recognize it as a valid baptism.


I find it hard to believe that someone who considers herself a Christian would not seek to be baptized at some point in 36 years of her life, especially if she attended services in a mainstream church. A non-baptized person could not receive communion for example in any mainstream church or participate in many aspects of church life, so it wouldn't really make sense for her to attend under those circumstamces. Therefore, I think we can safely assume that, unless Meghan was affiliated with some kind of unconventional , non-denominational Christian movement, Christianity was not an important part of her life, which is OK really as there is nothing wrong with being agnostic or non-religious. What is intriguing though is going so quickly from being non-religious to being baptized and joining a mainstream Christian church seemingly just because she is marrying into a family that is closely associated with the CoE.

 

[wyevale]

is going so quickly from being non-religious to being baptized

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 'conversion on the Road to Damascus' ?

 

[Gaudete]

A non-baptized person could not receive communion for example in any mainstream church or participate in many aspects of church life, so it wouldn't really make sense for her to attend under those circumstamces

This isn't strictly true.

During her time at the Immaculate Heart, I would imagine that Meghan attended (or at least had the opportunity to attend) Mass within the school's weekly schedule. She would have been refused the eucharist because Roman Catholic teaching is very clear that only those in full communion with the church and who are in a state of grace (that is, they are free of mortal sin) are allowed to receive communion. 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.

This greatly differs in the Church of England because there is a greater sense of autonomy and individual interpretation allocated to individual priests. Some churches will offer communion to anyone, even if they are not baptised, as long as they identify as a Christian. Others in the same communion (that is, Church of England clergy) will refuse communion to those who haven't been baptised. Others will refuse it to those who haven't been confirmed. If Meghan has attended Anglican services before, it's not impossible that she wouldn't have received communion even though she hasn't been baptised.

 

[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.

 

[Mbruno]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the 'conversion on the Road to Damascus' ?

You are comparing apples and oranges and St. Paul was hardly non-religious. On the contrary, he was a very observant Jew. Besides, there is no evidence that Meghan suddenly had an epiphany or a personal "conversion on the Road to Damascus" other than getting engaged to Harry.

As I said in my very first post on the subject, I will not second-guess or judge Meghan's motivation. I just hope she is doing it out of conviction, on her free will and with proper instruction/preparation, and not just because the CoE happens to be the state/established religion in England and, therefore, senior members of the Royal Family are expected to belong to it. As I said before, it bothers me how many previous royal brides converted to the denomination of their husbands' families seemingly just because it was an institutional requirement.

 

[Gaudete]

With the changes in law within the last 5 years, I wouldn't say that new members of the Royal Family are expected to become Anglicans. Realistically, they never were - they just couldn't be Roman Catholics.

Let's say that Meghan was a Roman Catholic. Under the law of the United Kingdom she could absolutely still marry Harry with no ramifications for his position, title, style, rank or succession rights even if he became King by some fluke of chance. The law now says that only the monarch must be in full communion with the Church of England. Of course, this would be a matter for the Roman Catholic Church to deal with but that would be a private and personal matter for Meghan, it wouldn't affect their marriage legally.

So whilst it may be a requirement set by the Queen privately or by the Archbishop as a parish priest, there's definitely no legal (or even social) requirement that any member of the Royal Family become an Anglican prior to their marriage.

 

[Somebody]

Roman Catholics are still banned from the Line of Succession - only the ban on marrying a Roman Catholic has been lifted (and those that were affected by that ban were reinstated).

 

[Gaudete]

Roman Catholics are still banned from the Line of Succession - only the ban on marrying a Roman Catholic has been lifted (and those that were affected by that ban were reinstated).

Roman Catholics would be yes but not Anglicans who marry Roman Catholics. For example, Prince Michael is now back in the Line of Succession after such a long time of being barred from it. Meghan would never be in the line of succession anyway, only her children would be if they were raised as Roman Catholics and received into the church at any time. But my point was that if this were the case, this would be a matter for Rome to decide in terms of Meghan's private communion with the church. It wouldn't make any difference to her wedding according to the Anglican Rite in St George's Chapel.

Legally there's no reason Harry couldn't have married her in an Anglican church service had she been a Catholic - or an Orthodox Christian, Muslim or Jew for that matter. Legally there is no requirement for the bride to be a member of the Anglican communion nor is there a social expectation that she should be either.

 

[Juliette2]

At any rate I hope she does get something out of the C of E..

I agree!

 

[Mbruno]

With the changes in law within the last 5 years, I wouldn't say that new members of the Royal Family are expected to become Anglicans. Realistically, they never were - they just couldn't be Roman Catholics.

Let's say that Meghan was a Roman Catholic. Under the law of the United Kingdom she could absolutely still marry Harry with no ramifications for his position, title, style, rank or succession rights even if he became King by some fluke of chance. The law now says that only the monarch must be in full communion with the Church of England. Of course, this would be a matter for the Roman Catholic Church to deal with but that would be a private and personal matter for Meghan, it wouldn't affect their marriage legally.

So whilst it may be a requirement set by the Queen privately or by the Archbishop as a parish priest, there's definitely no legal (or even social) requirement that any member of the Royal Family become an Anglican prior to their marriage.

There was no legal requirement either for Henri de Monpezat or Mary Donaldson to convert to Lutheranism (only the Danish monarch has to be Lutheran by law and, at most, by implication, the princes and princesses in the line of succession are expected to be Lutheran too, but not necessarily their spouses). Yet, both Mary and Henri converted.

In Belgium, Queen Astrid didn't have to convert to Catholicism either as Belgiium has no religious tests to ascend the throne or to join the Royal Family. However, when she got married, then Princess Astrid said she wanted to convert because the Belgian royal family was Catholic, Belgium was a Catholic country and, as the future queen, she had to be Catholic too; it is the old "cuis regio, eius religio" mentality from the 16th century that Astrid brought with her from Sweden and also explains Anne-Marie's and Sofia's conversions upon marriage. To the Catholic Church's credit though, Astrid was not allowed to convert right away and only did so a few years later, allegedly out of conviction and on her own free will according to whoever was in charge of preparing her for reception into the church.

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).