Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children

[Elspeth]

The intent of the Act is to prohibit any marriage to a non-Anglican, which would threaten the supremacy of the Crown as Head of the Church of England. Unless it is repealed or amended, no future heir to the throne will be allowed to marry anyone who has not embraced the Anglician faith.

If the Act doesn't say that a non-Anglican may not become Queen or Prince Consort, then the intent isn't relevant nowadays when Protestant and Catholic aren't the only options. The Act specifically excludes from the succession anyone who marries a Catholic; it says nothing about Lutherans, Orthodox, atheists, Jews, Muslims, or any other sect, religion, or worldview.The monarch has to be a member of the Church of England as long as Britain has an established church; the Act doesn't require that the consort be anything other than not Catholic. Nobody has had to give up his or her position in the line of succession, at least in the 20th century, for marrying anyone other than a Catholic. And even people a long way down the line of succession have to give up their place when they marry a Catholic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407239,00.html

IMO, it's about time they did what it takes to repeal that Act. It's a piece of blatant religious discrimination that must be highly offensive to Britain's Catholics.

 

[Lisele]

Diana was never "Princess Charles" only HRH the Princess of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales. The style "Princess Husband's Name" is only appropriate if married to a prince of the UK who holds no other peerage or title.

You may be right, but I read somewhere that since Diana was not created a princess in her own right, she was also technically known as Princess Charles although no one ever called her that.

According to Wikipedia.org:

Styles:

• The Honourable Diana Spencer (birth–9 June 1975)
• The Lady Diana Spencer (9 June 1975–29 July 1981)
• Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (29 July 1981–28 August 1996)
• Diana, Princess of Wales (28 August 1996–death)

The style "Princess Diana" was incorrect at all times of her life, though often used by the public and the media.

 

[Oppie]

If Prince Charles didn't have any other titles then she would have been Princess Charles (like Princess Micheal of Kent)

 

[Australian]

IMO, it's about time they did what it takes to repeal that Act. It's a piece of blatant religious discrimination that must be highly offensive to Britain's Catholics.

I agree with this 100%

 

[branchg]

The style "Princess Diana" was incorrect at all times of her life, though often used by the public and the media.

This is true as Diana was never granted the right to assume the dignity by the Queen via letters patent. However, the Palace confirmed after the divorce that it was acceptable to refer to Diana as "Princess Diana", although technically she was no longer a princess, as she was the mother of a future king.

 

[Elspeth]

Just as well. I mean, if they really thought that most people would go to the trouble of the "Diana, Princess of Wales," stuff (including the final comma, which almost always gets dropped when the title shows up in the middle of a sentence) every time they referred to her, they must have been living in the dim distant past when that sort of thing was important to the majority.

They could have said that it was totally unacceptable, and people would have just ignored them.

 

[tiaraprin]

If the Act doesn't say that a non-Anglican may not become Queen or Prince Consort, then the intent isn't relevant nowadays when Protestant and Catholic aren't the only options. The Act specifically excludes from the succession anyone who marries a Catholic; it says nothing about Lutherans, Orthodox, atheists, Jews, Muslims, or any other sect, religion, or worldview.The monarch has to be a member of the Church of England as long as Britain has an established church; the Act doesn't require that the consort be anything other than not Catholic. Nobody has had to give up his or her position in the line of succession, at least in the 20th century, for marrying anyone other than a Catholic. And even people a long way down the line of succession have to give up their place when they marry a Catholic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407239,00.html

IMO, it's about time they did what it takes to repeal that Act. It's a piece of blatant religious discrimination that must be highly offensive to Britain's Catholics.

I agree it should be repealed and is blatant religious discrimination. However, if they repeal it, there could be a push for a Catholic monarch and there are other claimants from the Stuart line that have a better claim to the throne than the Queen. Wouldn't that open up a nasty can of worms?

 

[Warren]

Don't call me that!

They could have said that it was totally unacceptable, and people would have just ignored them.

Just as people did when the Duchess of York said she didn't like the moniker "Fergie", and I believe the Princess of Wales hated "Di".

Whatever; so it's Di and Fergie then? Fits better in the headlines.
.

 

[tiaraprin]

Just as people did when the Duchess of York said she didn't like the moniker "Fergie", and I believe the Princess of Wales hated "Di".

Whatever; so it's Di and Fergie then? Fits better in the headlines.
.

The Duchess of York said in an interview with Jay Leno here in the States that Fergie was a name used by the tabloids because they could match and rhyme it to suit their purposes, such as "Freebie Fergie" etc. The same with the nickname "Di". It could be "Shy Di" etc.

I know the Duchess of York is called "Fergie" by some old friends (I have seen these people interviewed and refer to her as Fergie) from her school days, but other than that, she wishes to be called Sarah. I don't think she wanted to be referred to as "Fergie this" or "Fergie that" in the tabloids.

 

[Elspeth]

I agree it should be repealed and is blatant religious discrimination. However, if they repeal it, there could be a push for a Catholic monarch and there are other claimants from the Stuart line that have a better claim to the throne than the Queen. Wouldn't that open up a nasty can of worms?

Well, it might, but then there were historical reasons for the Act at the time which don't apply now, so all they need to do is to not backdate it. I don't think anybody since the time of the Stuarts has actually had to step aside from the very top of the line of succession on account of religion.

In terms of there ever being a Catholic monarch, they could simply repeal the part of the Act that dealt with the people who could become spouses of those in the line of succession while retaining the requirement for the monarch to be a communicant of the Church of England. As long as Britain has an established church, the monarch needs to be a member of it.


It might mean adding a large number of people who are sort of five hundredth in the line of succession, but I don't think it'd make any real difference.

 

[GrandDuchess]

I agree with all of you on this about religion. I think a good idea could be to change it so that there would be laws on religious affiliation for the monarch and future monarch only (and those in the line of succession who wants to keep their places in succession to the crown).

 

[branchg]

Well, it might, but then there were historical reasons for the Act at the time which don't apply now, so all they need to do is to not backdate it. I don't think anybody since the time of the Stuarts has actually had to step aside from the very top of the line of succession on account of religion.

In terms of there ever being a Catholic monarch, they could simply repeal the part of the Act that dealt with the people who could become spouses of those in the line of succession while retaining the requirement for the monarch to be a communicant of the Church of England. As long as Britain has an established church, the monarch needs to be a member of it.


It might mean adding a large number of people who are sort of five hundredth in the line of succession, but I don't think it'd make any real difference.

The trouble with repealing or amending the Act of Settlement is the position of the Crown as the Head of the Church of England. Realistically speaking, any change which would allow a Catholic or other religious affiliation to become Consort introduces the risk of the Sovereign's children and future heir to the throne choosing to embrace another faith (i.e. similar to the Duchess of Kent and her son). This would never be acceptable, so it's hard to imagine Parliament amending it.

The only way it could happen, in my opinion, is for the Church to be headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury (which is the reality in any case) as spiritual head of the Church. The Crown would represent Defender of All Faiths, something Charles is said to believe is appropriate when he ascends the throne.

 

[Oppie]

But doesn't the law ban Catholics only ? I always understood that an heir can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic. So for example if he marries someone who is Jewish you still have the same problem of there children deciding to convert to Judaism.

I agree that the law should be changed, those who choose to become another faith will then lose there succession rights but not marrying someone of a different faith

 

[Elspeth]

The trouble with repealing or amending the Act of Settlement is the position of the Crown as the Head of the Church of England. Realistically speaking, any change which would allow a Catholic or other religious affiliation to become Consort introduces the risk of the Sovereign's children and future heir to the throne choosing to embrace another faith (i.e. similar to the Duchess of Kent and her son). This would never be acceptable, so it's hard to imagine Parliament amending it.

I don't see where it would be an issue any more than any other situation of a mixed marriage where the children are brought up in one of the two faiths. If the consort is Catholic or Jewish and the children are raised in that faith and embrace the faith when they're of an age to, then they're removed from the line of succession. If the Duke of Kent was king at the moment, that means the line of succession would start with the Earl of St Andrews (who hasn't converted as far as I know), go to his elder daughter, continue to the younger daughter, and then skip Lord Nicholas and go to Lady Helen and her children. If either of the Earl's daughters is received into the Catholic church like their brother, then they'd be removed from the line of succession if they were the king's granddaughters just like they'd be removed from it in their present situation.

If the CofE is disestablished, there's no reason to have any religious requirement on the monarch or spouse or children. Until then, the monarch has to be a communicant, but I don't see any reason why his/her spouse should be. I especially don't see a reason for the spousal exclusion to be so specifically directed at Catholics in this day and age. I mean, Protestant-Catholic relations have been a running sore throughout British and Irish history, and this sort of holdover isn't helping.

 

[iowabelle]

I believe the Earl of St. Andrews' wife, Sylvanna, is one of the "dreaded" Catholics, so that Xs out the Earl.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, it does at the moment, but if the law were to be changed so that BEING a Catholic (or any other faith than CofE) was not permitted but MARRYING a Catholic was allowed, then the Earl would be in the line of succession, although his son, a convert to Catholicism, wouldn't be.

 

[sara1981]

IF Prince William marry to Kate they will become Prince and Princess of Wales like his parents DID! because he is heir of the throne and he is future King of England!

and Prince Harry will marry to Chelsy im not sure what kinda will titles from Gov nor HM Queen will given Prince Harry or Prince William's titles?

Sara Boyce

 

[AsianRedneck]

But, no one answered the question on wether the royal family would accept a poor and ugly woman. Also, how come Camilla married Prince Charles? I mean, she's not royal is she?

 

[Warren]

Titles for the poor

But, no one answered the question on wether the royal family would accept a poor and ugly woman. Also, how come Camilla married Prince Charles? I mean, she's not royal is she?

If William married "a poor and ugly woman" she would initially be known as "Princess William of Wales"; if she was created a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right she would be known as "Princess xxx of Wales". If William became Duke of xxx on his marriage then she would take his title to be known as the Duchess of xxx.

Camilla married Charles because he proposed to her, she accepted, and the Sovereign and government gave their approval. Since their marriage Camilla is styled as Royal Highness, so she is now "Royal".

I hope this has answered your question.

 

[happygolucky]

The chances of this happening is very very slim but one would assume either William or Victoria would have to give up their throne.

If it was to happen I guees it would make more since for Victoria to do so, her brother could be King in Sweden and then she and William could be King and Queen of England.

But this is so not going to happen!

Thanks for the clarification EL !

 

[happygolucky]

Crown Princess Victoria is Lutheran and ineligible to marry William under the Act of Settlement unless she renounced her faith and embraced the Anglican Church prior to marriage. Victoria would also have to reliniquish her right to the Swedish throne in favor of Carl Philip.

Same story for William. He would have to renounce his rights in favor of Harry and embrace the Lutheran Church to marry a future Queen of Sweden. Doubtful this will ever happen.

I agree with the renouncing , but so many people change their "religion" in order to get married... it wouldnt be the first time someone did that.. it is true haowever that the stakes wiuld be high ...

Thanks for the clarification and input branchg

 

[Josefine]

is there any dukedom that harry cant get after he is married or are all taken

 

[Iluvbertie]

IF Prince William marry to Kate they will become Prince and Princess of Wales like his parents DID! because he is heir of the throne and he is future King of England! and Prince Harry will marry to Chelsy im not sure what kinda will titles from Gov nor HM Queen will given Prince Harry or Prince William's titles? Sara Boyce

Sara - William is NOT the heir to the throne - his father is!!!

William may never become Prince of Wales. It is up to his father to create him Prince of Wales unless Charles dies before the Queen in which case she may create him Prince of Wales but he wouldn't get the other titles that can only go to the eldest son of the monarch.

William will remain as Prince William of Wales until either his father becomes king or the Queen gives him a title, probably at his wedding.

When the Queen dies he automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall and his wife Duchess of Cornwall - that would be his senior title until he is created Prince of Wales IF he is ever given that title.

Edward VII waited nine months before creating his son Prince of Wales. Throughout 1901 his son was the Duke of Cornwall AND York.

 

[Iluvbertie]

With regard to the religion of the spouse - the only religion/denomination banned is RC.

There is no need for others to actually convert.

Can anyone find the dates of conversion of George I, George II George III George IV William IV wives. They were all raised Lutheran. Was George I actually raised Anglican or Lutheran and if so when did he convert?? Remember when he was born he was not the heir to the British throne as he was born before the Act of Settlement. In fact did he ever get accepted into the CoE? If so can anyone provide a date?

More recently - Prince Albert was raised Lutheran, as was Princess/Queen Alexandra. Does anyone have a date of conversion??

What denomination was Princess Mary of Teck/Queen Mary raised? Lutheran, as the daughter of a German prince, or CoE as the daughter of a British Princess?

Was the Queen Mum raised Anglican or Presbyterian and if Presbyterian, when did she get accepted into the CoE?

In other words since the Act of Settlement, with the exception of the late Diana, Princess of Wales, most spouses were probably not CoE and the mention of their conversion doesn't seem to have been a big issue.

With the Duke of Edinburgh - he was raised Greek Orthodox. Permission for his marriage was given and then the Archbishop of Canterbury said that it would be a good idea if he was received formally into the CoE. In other words his marriage had been approved, announced and then as almost a side issue the issue of his denomination was mentioned.

All of these spouses were/are PROTESTANT. That is perfectly allowed by the Act of Settlement.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If William and Crown Princess Victorian fell in love they would still need the permission of their respective governments/monarchs to marry. The problems would be threefold as I see it.

1 William would have to become Lutheran as the spouse of the Swedish monarch MUST be Lutheran. The spouse of the British monarch only has to not be RC.

2 How would two separate governments cope with their monarch being the spouse of another monarch?

3 Who would inherit? Hopefully two children would be born and one would inherit Sweden and one Britain but which one?


Easier solution - William falls in love with Madelaine - gets a Princess who knows the ropes, a Protestant, and no top level concerns about the monarchs and inheritance.

 

[ysbel]

I think the British laws don't require a spouse to be Church of England but just Protestant. They don't require a Protestant spouse from another religion to convert. I don't remember that Alexandra converted to Anglicism but she may have later on of her own free will.

At any rate, I think if the girl is Christian and non-Catholic, it won't be an issue.

 

[branchg]

is there any dukedom that harry cant get after he is married or are all taken

Sussex or Cambridge are likely choices when Harry marries. William is likely to get Clarence, although it has been associated with rather bad luck.

 

[LauraMCS]

First of all Crown Princess Mary, Princess Grace, Princess Alexandra (of Denmark I presume) were created princesses in their own right by the monarch.

Pss. Alexandra of Denmark was not created a princess in her own right. She is allowed to use the Princess unless she remarries. QMII created her countess of Fredericksborg in her own right after the divorce.

 

[crisiñaki]

is there any dukedom that harry cant get after he is married or are all taken

What happens to the title of Duke of York? doesn't it belong to the second in line after the Prince of Wales?, so when Charles become King, what will happen with Andrew and Henry?

 

[ysbel]

William is likely to get Clarence, although it has been associated with rather bad luck.

Who other than Eddy, had the title of Duke of Clarence?