The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Weddings General Discussion (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f95/)
-   -   What Do Royal Brides Give Up For Marriage? (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f95/what-do-royal-brides-give-up-for-marriage-32023.html)

joroyale78 10-19-2011 03:19 PM

What Do Royal Brides Give Up For Marriage?
 
Did royal Brides have to Give up/ change things before the got married if so what?

Naggi 10-19-2011 03:29 PM

I think almost all - if not all - princesses not born royal - had to give up their jobs at first place. Letizia was a journalist, Maxima a banker, I think Mary was working for Microsoft I remember reading somewhere. Mette-Marit a waitress.

chelly 10-19-2011 05:36 PM

Privacy would one thing and perhaps the freedom really to go out of the house. At least for the Duchess of Cambridge, I don't know if it is exactly true of the others. Did they have the paparazzi stalking them?

asma 10-19-2011 05:45 PM

Also,Mary gave up her australian nationality and also her religion changing to lutheran.
Alexandra Manley gave up the custody of any children from her marriage to Joaquim in case of divorce upon their marriage.
In older generation,Anne Marie of Denmark gave up her right for the danish throne and also her children rights when she married king Kostantine of Greece.

nascarlucy 10-19-2011 07:04 PM

Some give up a career or job. Others change their religion or citizenship as stated above. Privacy probably is the number one thing that they give up. Some give up their children's rights to the throne, depending on the circumstances. I imagine there are other things that they also give up, which haven't been thought of.

Mermaid1962 10-19-2011 07:37 PM

In some cases, perhaps close contact with their own families. I think they'd be expected to spend major holidays with whichever royal family they married into, at least the occasion when the family goes to their place of worship on the holiday.

MichelleQ2 10-19-2011 07:42 PM

Autumn Phillips gave up her faith so her husband didnt have to give up his right to the throne.

Rhys82192 10-19-2011 09:41 PM

Princess Sophia of Greece gave up her Greek Orthodox Faith and converted into the Roman Catholic Faith when she married Prince Juan Carlos of Spain in 1962, in order to become Spain's Queen. Her name spelling was also changed from the Greek "Sophia" to the Spanish "Sofia".

Mermaid1962 10-19-2011 10:47 PM

They give up smoking sometimes. I think that Sarah Ferguson gave up smoking before she married Prince Andrew but then took up the habit again later on. Prince Philip also gave up smoking when he married the then Princess Elizabeth.

grevinnan 10-20-2011 12:35 AM

I would guess all the crown princesses gave up the right to custody of their children if they were to get divorced.

grevinnan 10-20-2011 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asma (Post 1327805)
Also,Mary gave up her australian nationality and also her religion changing to lutheran.
Alexandra Manley gave up the custody of any children from her marriage to Joaquim in case of divorce upon their marriage.
In older generation,Anne Marie of Denmark gave up her right for the danish throne and also her children rights when she married king Kostantine of Greece.

Alexandra have the main physical custody of the boys.

asma 10-20-2011 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grevinnan (Post 1327863)
Alexandra have the main physical custody of the boys.

Can you give me more explaination,please? As far as I know,the boys live with their father.

MARG 10-21-2011 04:42 AM

I think the most important thing they give up before they marry is themselves! From the moment their engagements are announced they become the Royal Fiancé, the Crown Princess in waiting, and are rigorously scrutinised, not least by the household of the family they are marrying into.

"Princess School" is tailor made for each fiancé and may involve learning a new "first" language, changing the style of deportment, dress and hair. History lessons, protocol lessons, a change of religious Denomination or even conversion to another is also a possibility because she ceases to be just Mary, Maxima, Mette-Marit, Marie, Letizia, Sarah, Sophie, Catherine . . . .

She is now, for all intents and purposes, the property of the State!

FasterB 10-21-2011 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asma (Post 1327805)
Also,Mary gave up her australian nationality and also her religion changing to lutheran.

No, she didnīt change her religion. Countess Alexandra did change her religion.
Quote:

Originally Posted by asma (Post 1327805)
Alexandra Manley gave up the custody of any children from her marriage to Joaquim in case of divorce upon their marriage.

This is partly correct. Prince Joachim and Countess Alexandra has shared custody of their children.
Alexandra will only have to give up custody IF she moves abroad. This goes for CPss Mary as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by asma (Post 1328053)
Can you give me more explaination,please? As far as I know,the boys live with their father.

The two boys, Nikolai and Felix, lives with their mother Countess Alexandra and her husband Martin Jørgensen.

Saschana 10-21-2011 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasterB (Post 1328439)
No, she didnīt change her religion. Countess Alexandra did change her religion.

Wasn't Mary Presbyterian before she married Frederik and converted to the Lutheran Danish National Church?

Eve2Eden 10-21-2011 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saschana

Wasn't Mary Presbyterian before she married Frederik and converted to the Lutheran Danish National Church?

Yes, she was. Although IIRC she was not officially "required" to convert, but chose to do so.

fandesacs2003 10-21-2011 11:10 AM

I think they give up to their past, and to their previous way of life. Sometimes also to their family, in official appearances.
Maxima was asked NOT to invite her father at the wedding, because of his political past.

FasterB 10-21-2011 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eve2Eden (Post 1328520)
Yes, she was. Although IIRC she was not officially "required" to convert, but chose to do so.

Iīve asked one, who must know the answer to the question and that person said that CPss Mary was given lectures in the evangelic-Lutheran faith before the wedding and that CPss Mary didnīt convert, so... I guess Iīll stick to this answer

MARG 10-21-2011 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eve2Eden (Post 1328520)
Yes, she was. Although IIRC she was not officially "required" to convert, but chose to do so.

I think there is a little confusion about "conversion" so here's hoping this will help clarify the issue:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki
Religious conversion is the adoption of a new religion that differs from the converts previous religion. Changing from one denomination to another within the same religion (e.g., Christian Baptist to Methodist, Muslim Shia to Sunni, etc) is usually described as re affiliation rather than conversion.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that those who change from Protestant to Roman Catholic or vice versa do, in fact, convert. Mary merely changed affiliation.

FasterB 10-22-2011 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG (Post 1328693)
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that those who change from Protestant to Roman Catholic or vice versa do, in fact, convert. Mary merely changed affiliation.

Exactly :flowers: Countess Alexandra did convert and was confirmed prior to her wedding with Prince Joachim.
CPss Mary didnīt convert and didnīt get confirmed prior to her wedding as she was already a protestant

nascarlucy 10-22-2011 09:51 PM

Sometimes it seems like not only is the royal brides judged but his or her family is as well. The whole family gives up privacy. Better or worse, you're family is who they are. You can't change who they are or what they are. Seems like some people want to mold the person's family or tell them how they should behave and conduct themselves now that their family member is married to a royal.

Grandduchess24 10-22-2011 10:40 PM

Most of the time the soon to be princess
Gives up
The religion they grew up with
Their family name
Their commoner freedom (to be able to go out without the royal escorts)
Sometimes their citizenship
Their career/job
Driving privileges?

nascarlucy 10-23-2011 06:42 PM

I don't know how many give this right up but a few give up the right to vote when they married into royalty. Most don't but a few do. This would be giving up a lot IMO.

FasterB 10-24-2011 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1329352)
I don't know how many give this right up but a few give up the right to vote when they married into royalty. Most don't but a few do. This would be giving up a lot IMO.

Here in DK they can vote, but they donīt.

SLV 10-24-2011 03:06 PM

The men have to give up their last name.
And would probably also have to give up the rights to their children in case of a divorce.

Tillymint 10-25-2011 04:43 PM

Obviously it depends on the woman and the royal family she is marrying into. I think on average they give up rather a lot: their careers (which they have often worked and studied hard for), their privacy, sometimes their religion, homeland and nationality. They loose their anonymity, everything that they do, say, wear is subject to scrutiny. I also think they loose their freedom of expression, I may be wrong but I think it's not really 'the done thing' for them to voice their personal opinions, especially when it comes to politics. I think they also loose their freedom of association, they would probably have to be very careful about who they mixed with and confided in. Mind you, while I think that they do give up a lot, they gain a lot in return!!!

LadyGabrielle 10-25-2011 05:06 PM

I have to agree with you Tillymint. I believe that for females it is quite a bit. Although, it seems that Catherine has been able to keep a small amount of her character. She has had to give up alot I think. I don't think she really gets to spend all that much time with her family anymore. It seems she has been taken away from any normality that she once knew. But at the same time it seems she is adamant that she will go grocery shopping on her own. Well maybe with bodyguards but never the less, she doesn't have someone shopping for her. I don't know, what you gain I suppose is worth the freedom? Hmmm. :ermm:

Diarist 10-25-2011 05:08 PM

Partly the ability to choose their friends in the same way as ordinary mortals do - new Princesses have to make sure their friends do not embarass the Royal Family in any way.

Prince Charles has also commented on the fact that because his diary is planned months in advance, he cannot always have a 'spontaneous' day off. When he made this remark though, several commentators made the point that it was something humbler mortals experienced as well - most of us have to go to work each day [if fortunate to have a job, bearing in mind that this is a time of unemployment in the UK] and/or attend to the home and child raising as well, with little opportunity for a 'spontaneous day off'.

Just my thoughs,

Alex

nascarlucy 10-25-2011 07:49 PM

I would imagine anyone any man or woman they (person marrying into royalty) had an assocation with in their lifetime could come under scrunity. Usually it would be something bad, as good news is seldom reported. Even if they had nothing to do with this person. An example of this would be a classmate who went bad. Or someone that lived down the hall from them in college did something bad. Even if they didn't associate with this person in school or in the dorm, the news media would associate them with this person or place them with that person.

tlklhm 11-16-2011 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FasterB
Exactly :flowers: Countess Alexandra did convert and was confirmed prior to her wedding with Prince Joachim.
CPss Mary didnīt convert and didnīt get confirmed prior to her wedding as she was already a protestant

I thought Countess Alexandra was also a Protestant from a Anglican Church?

In Singapore, we call this a transfer of membership from a Protestant denomination to another Protestant denomination. And Confirmation is only carried out in some denomination such as Anglican. Convert is for changes of one's faith to another, as per someone pointed out, eg.from Roman Catholic to Protestant or from Buddhism to Christianity.

XeniaCasaraghi 10-01-2013 09:11 PM

Was it really necessary for Autumn to convert? There are a lot of people ahead of Peter in the line of succession for anyone to really worry about if he loses his place.

Ish 10-01-2013 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlklhm (Post 1338068)
I thought Countess Alexandra was also a Protestant from a Anglican Church? In Singapore, we call this a transfer of membership from a Protestant denomination to another Protestant denomination. And Confirmation is only carried out in some denomination such as Anglican. Convert is for changes of one's faith to another, as per someone pointed out, eg.from Roman Catholic to Protestant or from Buddhism to Christianity.

The Anglican Church isn't actually Protestant though, although it shares similarities. Officially it is a reformed catholic church, and as such it basically straddles the two religions. If you're a Protestant, changing religions to Anglicanism is more than simply changing denominations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1605175)
Was it really necessary for Autumn to convert? There are a lot of people ahead of Peter in the line of succession for anyone to really worry about if he loses his place.

She could have, yes, and it would have been a similar situation to what Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have done. I think Autumn's decision to convert likely more reflects the values of the couple than the importance of Peter remaining in the line of succession. Given as the Duchess of Kent converted to Catholicism without the Duke losing his place in the succession I believe Autumn could do the same (even without the new succession laws) if she so wished.

amaryllus 10-01-2013 09:47 PM

It all comes down to the question-''Do I love, respect,adore this person,want him/her as parent to my children enough to live in fish bowl, give up a good part of my identity, not always be a full time parent to my children, have photogs your constant shadow"....

camelot23ca 10-01-2013 10:19 PM

I think the women and men who marry into royal families have to make a lot of sacrifices. They give up the expectation to automatic privacy for themselves and their children. They give up their careers. They give up a large degree of freedom and spontaneity. They give up the ability to live their day to day lives without scrutiny from the press and the public. The women, especially, give up the ability to do things like gain weight or cut their hair or change their wardrobe without tons of people having an opinion. If they do something embarrassing or make a mistake in public they'll hear about it endlessly. They give up the ability to express strong opinions over anything that might be the least bit controversial. They give up the right to have things like their finances and household expenditures be their business, and only their business.

I think it would be an extremely difficult life, especially for those who marry in and have lived as 'normal', non royal people beforehand.

Iluvbertie 10-01-2013 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi (Post 1605175)
Was it really necessary for Autumn to convert? There are a lot of people ahead of Peter in the line of succession for anyone to really worry about if he loses his place.

Maybe there were many people ahead of him but it would still be a change in status for him to lose his position. To you and me it doesn't mean much but in the family it could have be a bigger deal e.g. what religion would the children have been raised in? Would Autumn have attended church on Christmas Day with the family?

When your grandmother-in-law is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, an uncle-in-law is the next Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a close cousin-in-law will succeed to that position as well it takes on a different perspective to that of an ordinary person.

keb4266 11-01-2013 11:54 AM

Just stumbled on this thread. Re: changing religion. Religions are: Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Within Christianity, there are denominations: Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic.

Anyone who is a Presbyterian and marries a Roman Catholic is technically changing denomination but the religion is still Christianity.

Duchess of Durham 11-01-2013 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keb4266 (Post 1614368)
Just stumbled on this thread. Re: changing religion. Religions are: Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Within Christianity, there are denominations: Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic.

Anyone who is a Presbyterian and marries a Roman Catholic is technically changing denomination but the religion is still Christianity.

If a Presbyterian marries a Roman Catholic, neither gives up their denomination.

HereditaryPrincess 11-01-2013 03:02 PM

When they marry, I would imagine that royal brides would have to give up their privacy and the ability to be able to go anywhere as they please without being photographed or followed by the paparazzi/press. A royal bride who marries someone who isn't from their own country may have to give up the ability to speak their mother tongue all the time, particularly if her husband and his family don't speak her language very well. I would think that brides who marry an heir apparent or King will also have to give up any name choices they had for their first child (unless, they had their hearts set on a regal name before they met their husband).
EDIT: Another thing that I think royal brides would have to give up is their career.

I agree with the poster who said that a royal bride might have to give up some of her friends if the Royal Family they marry into doesn't think they're appropriate enough. It seems that most royals make new friends who are within the royal circle, although some royals could be/are still friendly with their friends before marriage.

Moonmaiden23 11-01-2013 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchess of Durham (Post 1614375)
If a Presbyterian marries a Roman Catholic, neither gives up their denomination.

But Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism are indeed examples of two different Christian denominations. So if a person switches from one to the other is that not giving up their denomination?

Mariel 11-01-2013 05:23 PM

keb and Moonmaiden, I 'm glad you guys understand the the Protestant churches and the Roman Catholic church are different denominations, not different religions. Having been both a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, I know that both sects believe the fundamentals of the Christian gospel. There are SERIOUS disagreements, as we know (!!!!) but still, the basic faith is the same.
However, I think it's a big step for a person like Autumn Phillips to give up her denomination in order to allow her husband to remain in line for the throne.
It would have been a bigger step, in some ways, if Prince William of Gloucester's love,
Zsuzsu, had converted from Judaism to Christianity. She would not have been required to do so, had they married, but if they had had children, they would have been raised Episcopal in order to retain their succession rights. Since William had Porphyria, he might well have left well enough alone and had no children, since Zsuzsu already had two children. I think she and her sons would have made an ideal family for him. And everyone would have made peace, more than peace, with this. Oh well, things don't work out very often.

cepe 11-01-2013 05:48 PM

This isn't a religious discussion - let's just say that religion (generally) is something a future member of a RF may have to give up.

I think that of all the items mentioned the 2 that strike me as key (for me) is

(1) the loss of spontaneity - you know that great call that says "Can you take tomorrow off and let's go for a picnic" or "I fancy a day at the races" or "How about a long weekend". Security, advising local police, advising owners of said racecourse ...... and on it goes. I think the planned order of life could be draining.

(2) Friendship + Trust - unless you can trust an individual absolutely then friendship is difficult to find and keep. the "Mates down the pub" and "girly chats" dont seem easy to achieve.

Duchess of Durham 11-01-2013 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 (Post 1614418)
But Presbyterianism and Roman Catholicism are indeed examples of two different Christian denominations. So if a person switches from one to the other is that not giving up their denomination?

That was not the point of my post. Keb 4266 stated when "a Presbyterian marries a Roman Catholic (they) technically give up their denomination," which is not true. Some non-Catholics (like my father-in-law) believe that when you marry a Catholic you become Catholic, which is not true. My husband was a Baptist before I married him and he is still a Baptist and I am still Catholic.

Ish 11-01-2013 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel (Post 1614435)
owever, I think it's a big step for a person like Autumn Phillips to give up her denomination in order to allow her husband to remain in line for the throne.

There is also a difference between converting from Catholicism to Protestantism and converting, as Autumn did, from Catholicism to Anglicanism (which in itself is a Reformed Catholic church). There are many similarities between the two, more so than between them and Protestant faiths, although there are also some key differences.

As to how much of a big deal it was, that would all just depend on how religious Autumn was to begin with (or how religious Peter is). She could have very easily been baptized Catholic and the like, but not considered herself to be overly religious - as such, converting, while still required, may not have been a big deal to her. I'm not saying that it wasn't, just that we don't know it was.

Quote:

It would have been a bigger step, in some ways, if Prince William of Gloucester's love, Zsuzsu, had converted from Judaism to Christianity. She would not have been required to do so, had they married, but if they had had children, they would have been raised Episcopal in order to retain their succession rights.
Individuals don't have to be raised within the Anglican Church in order to retain their succession rights to the British throne, they simply can't be Catholic. Having a Jewish heir might be an issue if it seemed like they would actually inherit the throne, as the monarch is he's of the CoE, but they can remain in the actual succession.

There are many European royals who are not Anglican and remain in the line of succession through their descent from Sophie of Hanover. A really good example is George I, who was baptized and raised in the Lutheran faith before he became King.

Duchess of Durham 11-01-2013 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1614443)
There is also a difference between converting from Catholicism to Protestantism and converting, as Autumn did, from Catholicism to Anglicanism (which in itself is a Reformed Catholic church). There are many similarities between the two, more so than between them and Protestant faiths, although there are also some key differences.

As to how much of a big deal it was, that would all just depend on how religious Autumn was to begin with (or how religious Peter is). She could have very easily been baptized Catholic and the like, but not considered herself to be overly religious - as such, converting, while still required, may not have been a big deal to her. I'm not saying that it wasn't, just that we don't know it was.



Individuals don't have to be raised within the Anglican Church in order to retain their succession rights to the British throne, they simply can't be Catholic. Having a Jewish heir might be an issue if it seemed like they would actually inherit the throne, as the monarch is he's of the CoE, but they can remain in the actual succession.

There are many European royals who are not Anglican and remain in the line of succession through their descent from Sophie of Hanover. A really good example is George I, who was baptized and raised in the Lutheran faith before he became King.

Did the "rules" change recently so that a member of the BRF could marry a Catholic without losing their right of succession?

Ish 11-01-2013 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchess of Durham (Post 1614444)
Did the "rules" change recently so that a member of the BRF could marry a Catholic without losing their right of succession?

It's in the process of being changed. The problem with changing the rules is that all 16 Commonwealth Realms have to pass the changes, and as of yet not all of them have done so. The change doesn't come in to place until they all pass it (as with the equal primogeniture). There is a loophole, though, in that the spouse cannot be Catholic at the wedding, but can convert later (which... Either the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of Kent's wife did). Similarly, children being raised Catholic remain in the succession until they're confirmed (or at least the British ones do).

Ish 11-01-2013 06:13 PM

Oh, also, the children of the excluded person (when someone marries a Catholic) can be in the succession if they're not Catholic themselves, as happened with Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's children.

Mariel 11-01-2013 08:18 PM

I believe that the Anglican church, for all its liturgical traditions, is generally considered Protestant. Yes, it shares an ancient liturgy (if used instead of the modern version) with the Roman Catholic church, but it belongs to the inter-faith organizations of Protestantism, which the Roman Catholic Church does not. The issue of communion can be a stark one between the two. Some Catholic pastors and Episcopal pastors will not allow their parish members to have communion at the other's altar. Or even in the nursing home. It has become an "issue" in my town when the Catholic priest got mad at the Episcopal priest for giving communion in the nursing home to Catholics. I realize, Cepe, that this is not a religious thread, but these are issues a bride could run into if moving from the Catholic to the Anglican or Episcopal church. Possibly it would be smoothed over for royalty in a way that the average member would not experience. I was shocked to read here on TRF that Maxima is Catholic but has permission from the Vatican to have her children raised Protestant. I do not know if that is true, but I read it here and it was not challenged, to my knowledge. For the Vatican to give a formal permission such as this could not have happened when I was young and knew more about these things. There might have been a "wink,wink" situation but never a formal decree. Under the present pope, ecumenical things such as this may become more common, but Pope Francis has surprised everyone and cannot be second guessed. In any case, I think "transfers" of royal fiancees from Catholic to Protestant IS a big deal unless special arrangements are made because the parties are royal. As far as transfers from Judaism to Protestant, this would be highly possible in Reform Judaism without the bride being alienated from her family, but not possible in Orthodox Judaism, without a "wink,wink" situation. I am familiar with the Judaism situation from study with a rabbi and also because some members of my husband's family have had some conversion struggles. These things can alienate families.

Ish 11-01-2013 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel (Post 1614460)
I believe that the Anglican church, for all its liturgical traditions, is generally considered Protestant. Yes, it shares an ancient liturgy (if used instead of the modern version) with the Roman Catholic church, but it belongs to the inter-faith organizations of Protestantism, which the Roman Catholic Church does not. The issue of communion can be a stark one between the two. Some Catholic pastors and Episcopal pastors will not allow their parish members to have communion at the other's altar. Or even in the nursing home. It has become an "issue" in my town when the Catholic priest got mad at the Episcopal priest for giving communion in the nursing home to Catholics. I realize, Cepe, that this is not a religious thread, but these are issues a bride could run into if moving from the Catholic to the Anglican or Episcopal church. Possibly it would be smoothed over for royalty in a way that the average member would not experience. I was shocked to read here on TRF that Maxima is Catholic but has permission from the Vatican to have her children raised Protestant. I do not know if that is true, but I read it here and it was not challenged, to my knowledge. For the Vatican to give a formal permission such as this could not have happened when I was young and knew more about these things. There might have been a "wink,wink" situation but never a formal decree. Under the present pope, ecumenical things such as this may become more common, but Pope Francis has surprised everyone and cannot be second guessed. In any case, I think "transfers" of royal fiancees from Catholic to Protestant IS a big deal unless special arrangements are made because the parties are royal. As far as transfers from Judaism to Protestant, this would be highly possible in Reform Judaism without the bride being alienated from her family, but not possible in Orthodox Judaism, without a "wink,wink" situation. I am familiar with the Judaism situation from study with a rabbi and also because some members of my husband's family have had some conversion struggles. These things can alienate families.

While the Anglican Church has many similarities with Protestant churches it in itself is not a Protestant Church. Like Orthodox churches it is somewhere outside of both Catholicism and Protestantism. It often gets lumped into Protestantism because it is a reformed church.

https://www.anglicancatholic.org/about-the-church

Moonmaiden23 11-01-2013 10:38 PM

At school I was taught what Mariel posted, that the Anglican/Episcopal churches are indeed considered Protestant because they evolved from the "protest" against the Church of Rome in the 16th century.

I certainly have always considered it so.

Ish 11-02-2013 11:32 PM

It's often taught as such in schools, I think just because it simplifies things (and because there's a prevalent misconception regarding it).

The Anglican Church didn't really evolve out of the protest movement in a similar way to Protestant religions, it just happened to have it's genesis around the same time. What people often forget is that individuals who were Catholic had a huge hand in forming the Anglican Church - including Henry VIII.

During Henry's reign the church came into existence not because Henry agreed with the various protests - he even wrote articles in support of the Catholic Church - but because he wanted a divorce. Thus the break wasn't from the church's teachings so much as it was from Rome. The major changes that happened within it were more about Henry seizing power and wealth than about creating a Protestant faith.

The church itself seemed to go back and forth between being more Catholic and more Protestant during the reigns of Henry, Edward, and Mary, depending on the beliefs of each (as well as the beliefs of the advisors and wives of Henry), but when Elizabeth came to the throne she sought a way to branch the divide. She didn't return the church to Rome, but she didn't go the way of Protestantism (which in England at the time was very puritanical). Instead she took a middle-of-the-road approach; the CoE became something that was both reformed and catholic at the same time. It's outside of the Roman church, but it's also outside of the Protestant one too.

I like to think of it (affectionately, as my family is largely Anglican) as the younger, half brother of the RC, while the Protestants are the crazy neighbours down the street. They're all in the same area and have similar beliefs, but in many ways the RC, Anglican, and Orthodox churches are more like each other than any of them is like the Protestants.

Iluvbertie 11-02-2013 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1614445)
It's in the process of being changed. The problem with changing the rules is that all 16 Commonwealth Realms have to pass the changes, and as of yet not all of them have done so. The change doesn't come in to place until they all pass it (as with the equal primogeniture). There is a loophole, though, in that the spouse cannot be Catholic at the wedding, but can convert later (which... Either the Duke of Gloucester or the Duke of Kent's wife did). Similarly, children being raised Catholic remain in the succession until they're confirmed (or at least the British ones do).


The Duchess of Kent was the one who converted after her marriage.

British children remain in the line of succession until they themselves have 'professed' the RC faith and as such they have to be confirmed not just baptised.

The new laws have to be passed in the other realms - I think there are three where it is automatic due to the wording of their constitutions.

The other realms, with the possible exception of Canada, haven't even bothered to introduce the legislation and as George was a boy don't see the need. I suspect they also don't see the need to worry about the rights to be in the line of succession of someone like say Prince Michael or the fact that Eugenie still needs to formally ask permission to marry or her children are illegitimate.

I spoke to my local MP a few days ago and asked him about this issue and he said that as far as he is aware there in no intention of worrying about it in Australia at the moment - but he also reminded me that he is a backbencher, new to parliament and not in the inner decision making of the party so it maybe on the agenda but as far as he is aware it isn't planned by the current (new) government and that there are still the constitutional questions to sort out about whether or not the states have to also pass the legislation and if so do they have to do it first or whether it has to go to a referendum.

sarahedwards2 11-03-2013 12:40 AM

Why was Kate not confirmed until just before she married William, if she was baptized as an infant?

cepe 11-03-2013 12:52 AM

So instead of a discussion on what partners give up in order to join a Rf, we have a discussion on the differences between protestant, anglican, anglo-catholic and catholic faiths.

I'll leave you to it but perhaps someone should rename this thread?

Ish 11-03-2013 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cepe (Post 1614664)
So instead of a discussion on what partners give up in order to join a Rf, we have a discussion on the differences between protestant, anglican, anglo-catholic and catholic faiths. I'll leave you to it but perhaps someone should rename this thread?

It was just a tangent taken because of the discussion that royal brides often have to change religions (and the subset of when it's a conversion and when it's not). Yes, it's a bit off topic, but hardly the end of the world.

amaryllus 11-15-2013 08:37 AM

Not trying to be silly but what happens if an heir marries a conservative Muslim or even an atheist?

cepe 11-15-2013 09:06 AM

if they have any sense at all they will give up social media.

nascarlucy 11-15-2013 08:10 PM

When I saw this question, my first thought wasn't religion but having no privacy anymore. I like to travel and go explore things, something you really couldn't do anymore or if you did, everything down to the last detail would have to be planned out. You're security would be more important than you're privacy. Nothing could be done out of the blue.

Moonmaiden23 11-15-2013 08:28 PM

I agree nascarlucy. Privacy, freedom and anonymity, the three most important things to me personally-are what many women sacrifice to marry into a Royal family.

Mariel 11-15-2013 11:59 PM

I'll bet some enterprising women wear disguises so they can to out incognito. They might even go out with a security man posing as a friend or relative, also incognito. I'll bet it happens fairly often but it would take some planning if one lived in, say, Kensington Palace and had reporters staring at one's front and back doors at all times. One might arrange to dig a tunnel to the outside world? The tunnel could work until it was discovered.
I remember a History Channel presentation on the architectural wonders of Paisley Abbey, which included an underground sewer tall enough for a man to walk through, in case he needed to elude somebody. The sewer was constructed with gothic arches, as I recall, and was elaborate, with several passageways going in different directions. This abbey existed primarily in a time of constant war between England and Scotland, so the tunnels may have seen some use.
A wife could use a tunnel too.

Osipi 11-16-2013 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel (Post 1618539)
I'll bet some enterprising women wear disguises so they can to out incognito. They might even go out with a security man posing as a friend or relative, also incognito. I'll bet it happens fairly often but it would take some planning if one lived in, say, Kensington Palace and had reporters staring at one's front and back doors at all times.

I know that I've read on one or more occasions that Diana, Princess of Wales had used wigs and glasses/sunglasses in the past in order to slip about without being recognized.

I would imagine that its quite stressful to have to mind every move one makes along with trying to focus on what is needed to get through the day and even in disguise, to be on constant alert to avoid recognition.

Princess B 08-30-2014 08:41 AM

Japanese princesses by birth, if they marry a non royal lose their title of HIH Princess and membership to the imperial house.

For instance the former HIH Proncess Sayako after her wedding is now Mrs. Kuroda. And no longer a member of the imperial household.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

AnaFrey 09-05-2014 03:21 AM

They all leave their jobs before marriage. I have seen may royal brides who give up their jobs when the got married.

JR76 09-05-2014 04:16 AM

Marie-Antoinette had to give up everything before she was allowed to enter France. She had remove her clothes, her jewellery, leave her dog behind. Basically anything Austrian was taken from her and exchanged for something French.
Adding to this she had to have corrective dental surgery done which in those days was done without any anesthesia.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Marty91charmed 09-05-2014 07:48 AM

That sounds terrible! I didn't know about the teeths:ohmy: Why?


And it's even more depressing since the wedding was an agreement and not for love:sad:

MARG 09-05-2014 10:04 PM

Most women marrying into a royal family also lose control or even custody of their children. Joachim and Alexandra seemed to have done well, as have Andrew and Sarah, however if it comes down to the direct heirs, while custody may be shared the children would never be allowed to reside outside the country of birthright.

JR76 09-05-2014 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marty91charmed (Post 1699636)
That sounds terrible! I didn't know about the teeths:ohmy: Why?


And it's even more depressing since the wedding was an agreement and not for love:sad:


According to (the not always correct) Wikipedia it was because the French thought Marie-Antoinette had crooked teeth.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

DanskPrincess 09-05-2014 11:51 PM

Royal brides they give up a lot but gain a lot, they live a luxurious life with not count clothing and jewelery but servants they never cook iron or clean the house, etc...etc.........but not all,of us as brides give something too, we all get married in different families with deferents education and cultur, ,! I think they have more to gain than to loose

nascarlucy 09-06-2014 10:34 AM

A lot of what they give up depends on the status of their husband. If the husband is heir to the throne, then they give up more than if their husband is one of many children or is not an heir to a throne. Most of the royal brides would have to give up their job or careers which for some, this would be asking a lot. But then again, not having to ever have to do housework or cleaning or mundane chores again and having nice clothing, jewelry and being able to travel all over the world would be worth it.

Skippy 09-06-2014 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1699816)
A lot of what they give up depends on the status of their husband. If the husband is heir to the throne, then they give up more than if their husband is one of many children or is not an heir to a throne. Most of the royal brides would have to give up their job or careers which for some, this would be asking a lot. But then again, not having to ever have to do housework or cleaning or mundane chores again and having nice clothing, jewelry and being able to travel all over the world would be worth it.

In my opinion, apart from the travelling over the world, it depends on whether having access to nice clothing and jewelry and the sorts is the highest goal one can have in life.
It would not be mine and I would not want to be married to royalty, I am quite fond of my anonimity.

Moonmaiden23 09-06-2014 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR76 (Post 1699605)
Marie-Antoinette had to give up everything before she was allowed to enter France. She had remove her clothes, her jewellery, leave her dog behind. Basically anything Austrian was taken from her and exchanged for something French.
Adding to this she had to have corrective dental surgery done which in those days was done without any anesthesia.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Yes, I remember reading that about her teeth. She had a very prominent overbite, and it was decided that it must be corrected to make her more acceptable to the French.

She and Louis XVI did not have a romantic, passionate love for one another. But they did grow to love one another deeply and they remained united and devoted during their ordeal in imprisonment.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises