Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
An excerpt From last months Catholic Herald. It gets to the question for some.

Hang on a second, Archbishop of Canterbury: was Miss Markle already planning to avail herself of these sacraments because she had been converted to such beliefs, or is this just a matter of form now she is marrying a royal? Surely that is a question which matters.'

Writing in The Catholic Herald, she continues: 'Had the Church taken into account the previous marriage and divorce? But that pales into insignificance beside the question of baptism and confirmation, both of which sacraments require belief and commitment.

'Where is the evidence Miss Markle would have adopted such procedures had she not been about to marry a prince of the realm . . . A wedding is holy matrimony, not just a gigantic fancy dress parade.'
Read more: Ann Widdecombe blasts Meghan Markle's CofE conversion | Daily Mail Online
 
I don’t care that baptism and confirmation happened But I don’t believe she found a Prince and Jesus at the same time. It was necessary to do it and it’s been done.
 
as a christian, we baptise and then prepare for communion and prepare for confirmation separately. these are important steps of faith, each requiring a lot of preparation and commitment and consideration of each step. to give you an idea, one prepares for 2 years for communion, and about 1 year for confirmation. so to see that meghan was baptised and confirmed on the same day, with both activities done one followed by another as if it were a laundry list makes me for one disappointed but also makes it appear as if this was something that 'had to be done' as a future member of the RF that she will be rather than as the commitment / devotion that the media is reporting.

That sounds like a very Roman Catholic approach to baptism and confirmation/communion.

As an Anglican I was baptised at 4 months with two godparents who never attended church with me again as long as either of them lived.

At 13 I was confirmed after 10 weeks of classes at school and took my first communion the next morning. That is the normal approach - 10 weeks of classes once a week and confirmation BEFORE taking communion.

Remember too that Anglicans don't 'go to confession' but confess in private directly to God and not to another human. It is part of the service of preparation for communion of course - and part of many other church services - but going and sitting in a room and confessing to another human isn't part of our way at all. We can 'confess our sins' to God at any time and ask for his forgiveness.

What I am pointing out are differences between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism in the way they approach confirmation/communion.

I teach at a Church of England school and we have many students follow Meghan's approach now - baptised and confirmed/communion on the same day. Many parents don't bother getting their kids baptised anymore so when the child is 13 or 14 and wants to be confirmed they have to first of all be baptised and that short ceremony can be done on the same day as the confirmation as the confirmation is actually 'confirming' the promises made at the baptism by the godparents. These students do have the full preparation for confirmation which is what is the important part - being prepared to make the promise to live your life according to the teachings of Christ and not have some one make it for you, which is all baptism is - someone else making a promise on your behalf. 10 weeks preparation time is plenty of time in the CoE.
 
Last edited:
I think it's a case of "damned if she does and damned if she doesn't" (no deliberate pun intended!) How seriously and genuinely Meghan feels about this representation of religious commitment is a private matter that none of us can know.
 
That sounds like a very Roman Catholic approach to baptism and confirmation/communion.

As an Anglican I was baptised at 4 months with two godparents who never attended church with me again as long as either of them lived.

At 13 I was confirmed after 10 weeks of classes at school and took my first communion the next morning. That is the normal approach - 10 weeks of classes once a week and confirmation BEFORE taking communion.

Remember too that Anglicans don't 'go to confession' but confess in private directly to God and not to another human. It is part of the service of preparation for communion of course - and part of many other church services - but going and sitting in a room and confessing to another human isn't part of our way at all. We can 'confess our sins' to God at any time and ask for his forgiveness.

What I am pointing out are differences between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism in the way they approach confirmation/communion.

I teach at a Church of England school and we have many students follow Meghan's approach now - baptised and confirmed/communion on the same day. Many parents don't bother getting their kids baptised anymore so when the child is 13 or 14 and wants to be confirmed they have to first of all be baptised and that short ceremony can be done on the same day as the confirmation as the confirmation is actually 'confirming' the promises made at the baptism by the godparents. These students do have the full preparation for confirmation which is what is the important part - being prepared to make the promise to live your life according to the teachings of Christ and not have some one make it for you, which is all baptism is - someone else making a promise on your behalf. 10 weeks preparation time is plenty of time in the CoE.



The CofE has always been a broad church which includes the practice of confession. The Common Worship provision entitled "Reconciliation and Restoration" includes two forms of service for "Reconciliation of a Penitent". The ministry of reconciliation requires that what is said in confession to a priest may not be disclosed. The practice is detailed in Anglican churches overseas too such as Canada where The Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada states: "The secrecy of a confession of sin is morally absolute for the confessor, and must under no circumstances be broken." It was the fear and ignorance of the confessional that stoked prejudice and bigotry against The Roman church that led to such laws as on succession to the throne and marriages of the royal family.
 
:previous: I find myself surprisingly unsurprised that there are those that firmly believe that Meghan just popped off and got herself "done" in much the same way that wealthy parents had their babies "Christened" with no personal faith nor intention of sending their child to church let alone attending themselves.

Meghan's upbringing was basically agnostic as neither parent seems to have been a member of any church and for her to want to share that part of Harry's life is pretty natural. No big farce or lie, merely a stated intention that she wished to join Harry and honour his grandmother.

However, it is not as easy as that and Meghan found herself facing study classes with no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and he doesn't just punch a ticket. Had he felt Meghan insincere or unready he could have deferred her Baptism and Confirmation until or unless he believed she was ready and nobody could force his hand.

Royal Rob, you are in error. Neither Baptism nor Confirmation is a prerequisite for marrying a prince. "Judge not lest ye be judged".
 
I think Meghan's personal religious believes are one thing, imho, that shouldn't be questioned. Faith and religion, and ones approach to them are private, and to go onto a publication, like DM, or any other news paper, and publicly question her believes imho is extremely tacky and close minded. DM is so widely known for their christian approach to reporting anything, that it's laughable, that they print anything questioning Meghan's faith. This again is just my opinion, and not aimed to offend anyone.
 
Well! Well! Yet another hypocritical double standard being used by Meghan's detractors to pull her down. Now Meghan has chosen of her own free will to become a member of the CofE, something that she didn't have to do to marry Harry. I bet my cup of coffee, that if Meghan had NOT chosen to do this, these same detractors would be saying that she disrespected Harry, the church and the Queen ad head of the church!

Tell me anyone....did Kate have to provide proof of her 'genuineness' when she was confirmed shortly before marrying William? Now she is English and was baptised in the Anglican church as a child. I guess that she too only got confirmed to marry William as a future king!

Did Autumn Phillips, former Canadian Roman Catholic, had to provide proof that she was a genuine convert to Anglicanism?

The answers to these 2 questions are a resounding NO!!!

I read an article by the same Anne Widgecome as to why she is against Meghan. Hear this....it's because of Meghan's background and that she's divorced!!!!!!!!
Isn't the future King and Queen of England also divorced but engaged in an extra marital affair while married? Aren't 2 other children of the Queen divorced? Double standards at their best so I don't count this women's opinion as meaning anything!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Well! Well! Yet another hypocritical double standard being used by Meghan's detractors to pull her down. Now Meghan has chosen of her own free will to become a member of the CofE, something that she didn't have to do to marry Harry. I bet my cup of coffee, that if Meghan had NOT chosen to do this, these dame detractors would be saying that she disrespected Harry, the church and the Queen ad head of the church!

Tell me anyone....did Kate have to provide proof of her 'genuineness' when she was confirmed shortly before marrying William? Now she is English and was baptised as a child. I guess that she too only got confirmed to marry William as a future king!

Did Autumn Phillips, former Canadian Roman Catholic had to provide proof that she was a genuine convert to Anglicanism?

The answers to these 2 questions are a resounding NO!!!

I read an article by the same Anne Widgecome as to why she is against Meghan. Hear this....it's because of Meghan's background and that she's divorced!!!!!!!!
Isn't the future King and Queen of England also divorced but engaged in an extra marital affair while married? Aren't 2 other children of the Queen divorced? Double standards at their best so I don't count this women's opinion as meaning anything!!!!!!

Actually, there was criticism of Kate and questioning how genuine she was in choosing to be confirmed before she married.

Charles and Camilla could not marry in church and had to go through the humiliation of making the general confession in their blessing ceremony - something it is unlikely Meghan will have to do as it is not part of the marriage service. I left the UK 16 years before C&C married & divorcees were being married in my C of E.

Anne married Tim in Scotland - maybe by choice but maybe so it avoided problems with the Church of England.

Meghan might be being treated unfairly but she is not the only one.
 
:previous: I find myself surprisingly unsurprised that there are those that firmly believe that Meghan just popped off and got herself "done" in much the same way that wealthy parents had their babies "Christened" with no personal faith nor intention of sending their child to church let alone attending themselves.



Meghan's upbringing was basically agnostic as neither parent seems to have been a member of any church and for her to want to share that part of Harry's life is pretty natural. No big farce or lie, merely a stated intention that she wished to join Harry and honour his grandmother.



However, it is not as easy as that and Meghan found herself facing study classes with no less a person than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby and he doesn't just punch a ticket. Had he felt Meghan insincere or unready he could have deferred her Baptism and Confirmation until or unless he believed she was ready and nobody could force his hand.



Royal Rob, you are in error. Neither Baptism nor Confirmation is a prerequisite for marrying a prince. "Judge not lest ye be judged".



If not a prerequisite then it makes life easier at lest. Ha ha love the biblical touch in your post and right back at you.
 
Ya'll realize don't you that the whole judge not passage is referring to the state of one's eternal salvation (heaven/hell) not their behavior on a specific issue.

Folks judge situations on a daily basis to determine if it's something good or not etc. Judgement is not automatically a negative thing.


LaRae
 
I don't think it's on us to judge other people's sincerity, when/if they decide to join a church.
 
Sure it could.
She might be a person who simply doesn't care that much about which church she attends.
Lots of people aren't committed to any particular faith and consider one as good as another.

This might be due to Meghan's upbringing; her father belonged to one church, her mother to a different one, and the school she attended to a third.
It doesn't seem strange if she has no special attachment to any.

Well, but that's your opinion. You don't know beyond the shadow of a doubt what her religious beliefs are, or exactly how she was raised spiritually. Neither do I for certain, but I'm not going to make assumptions that her decision to be baptized and confirmed in the C of E was only a gesture. From all evidence, Meghan is a very caring person who has been committed to giving to others from an early age, with her mother passing on to her that feeling of generosity and kindness toward others. Meghan's Catholic high school teachers spoke in an ABC documentary about Meghan's deep sense of caring for people in need and praised the volunteer work she did as a teenager in her community.

We also do not have documented evidence of whether or not Meghan was raised attending church regularly. We simply do not know unless she's spoken about that aspect of her life previously in an interview or in her writings. She's definitely someone who enjoys sharing inspirational quotes and words of wisdom, and it's clear that she has a heart for encouraging other people in their endeavors.

I believe the report is true that Meghan has developed a close bond with the Archbishop. There's no reason for that to be lied about. And there's also no reason for everything that's reported about Meghan to be overly questioned and criticized in a continually negative fashion. Sure, there are things to question and to discuss, but why all the negativity and harshly critical assumptions?
 
Last edited:
Catherine was baptised at St Andrews in Bradfield, even attending the local Bradfield CoE primary school. And like many Anglicans nowadays attended on Easter and Christmas. What she didn’t do was become confirmed but she clearly had a history with the church.

So Meghan’s situation is different. We don’t if she was baptised, what the church is. Did she ever attend.

And like it or not many view as a sort of ‘jailhouse conversation’.

Buts It’s over and done with now and our very liberal Archbishop of Canterbury has given his blessing.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the lecture; however, I must say there was no need for you to copy snd paste anothers work about the Self-Realization Fellowship, its history, and its late founder.

As one who visits the SRF lake shrine in Pacific Palisades as well as the temple near my home in Encinitas, CA quite often I know a lot about the SRF. It is a very special place.

Well, I'm glad you know so much about the Temple. And in thanking you previously for your indication that it is not a Buddhist Temple, I was not lecturing you.

I obviously checked further into the Temple's background in order to educate myself, and I shared what I learned, since you did not elaborate in your original post after correcting my mistaken reference. Once again, I extend to you my thanks for enlightening me. For whatever reason, you can continue somehow being annoyed at my mentioning anything about it, since you already 'know a lot about the SRF' yourself. 😄

An excerpt From last months Catholic Herald. It gets to the question for some.

Read more: Ann Widdecombe blasts Meghan Markle's CofE conversion | Daily Mail Online

Smacks of some kind of jealousy and negativity on the part of Widdecombe, IMO.

Here's another report in Town and Country:
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/s...58507/meghan-markles-divorce-anglican-church/

"When asked whether Markle's first marriage to Trevor Engelson was an issue, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, who will officiate the vows at the upcoming royal wedding, replied, 'It's not a problem.' (Markle and Engelson divorced in 2013, citing "irreconcilable differences.")

'We went through that as anyone would who will officiate at a wedding where someone has been separated and a partner is still living,' Welby continued, per Sky News."


There are many reasons why someone would join a church or religion, them believing in it being just one. Religion has as much to do with social constructions as it has to do with faith.

It is incredibly unlikely that Meghan is joining the Church of England because she has a newfound belief in its teachings that just happens to coincide with her relationship with Harry. It is a lot more likely that she recognizes the church as being important to Harry’s family, and realizes that there are a lot of activities that will involve the Church of England in her future and has come to a logical conclusion that joining the church will enable her to be more involved and/or more comfortable in these activities.

Many people convert to a religion because of their significant other. It’s probably less common now in a world where (in the West at least) religion plays a smaller role, but it still happens. Meghan is not unique in this.

I'm still not sure how or why you or anyone else can know for sure that the way you see it is actually the way it is. We do know that Meghan's father's faith growing up was Episcopalian. We don't know anything about his spiritual beliefs or about what he may or may not have shared with his daughter spiritually while helping to raise her. We do know that the Episcopal faith is the Americanized version of the Anglican faith.

as a christian, we baptise and then prepare for communion and prepare for confirmation separately. these are important steps of faith, each requiring a lot of preparation and commitment and consideration of each step. to give you an idea, one prepares for 2 years for communion, and about 1 year for confirmation. so to see that meghan was baptised and confirmed on the same day, with both activities done one followed by another as if it were a laundry list makes me for one disappointed but also makes it appear as if this was something that 'had to be done' as a future member of the RF that she will be rather than as the commitment / devotion that the media is reporting.

How do you know when Meghan made the decision to be baptized and confirmed in the C of E? For all we know she may have been studying and receiving counsel from the Archbishop since early last year. Meghan and Harry may have known for some time that they were going to eventually marry, and that it was only a matter of time before they would get engaged. Meghan was visiting Harry quite often in London over the past year-and-a-half, which most likely included church attendance with Harry at the Chapel Royal, and being introduced to the Archbishop well before last November.

Ya'll realize don't you that the whole judge not passage is referring to the state of one's eternal salvation (heaven/hell) not their behavior on a specific issue.

Folks judge situations on a daily basis to determine if it's something good or not etc. Judgement is not automatically a negative thing.

The Biblical warning is often taken out of context. Here's another explanation:

"Jesus commanded 'Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment' (John 7:24, NRSV), and Paul's rhetorical question 'Is it not those who are inside [the church] that you are to judge?' (1 Cor. 5:12). Clearly not all judging is forbidden... Jesus meant only to condemn hypocritical judging."
To Judge, or Not to Judge | Christianity Today
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All this reminds me of the episode where George converts to Albanian Orthodox to marry this woman he met. The Bishop asks him what about the faith attracts you and George replies the hats. He likes the pointy hats.

Imo and it’s only my opinion, Meghan would have converted to any religion if it meant becoming Princess Harry. Harry is her pointy hat.
 
All this reminds me of the episode where George converts to Albanian Orthodox to marry this woman he met. The Bishop asks him what about the faith attracts you and George replies the hats. He likes the pointy hats.

Imo and it’s only my opinion, Meghan would have converted to any religion if it meant becoming Princess Harry. Harry is her pointy hat.

Based on every interaction that I've publicly seen between Meghan and Harry, she's not just "this woman he met." It's fine to sit back and question what you apparently perceive as Meghan's 'pointy hat' motivations. I don't think either of them are perfect people, but I do think they are in love and there's something that seems fated in how they met at the right time in both their lives. The fact that they are related via ancient ancestors dating back to the court of Henry VIII is rather amazing, fateful, and a reminder that 'truth is often stranger than fiction.'
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, but that's your opinion. You don't know beyond the shadow of a doubt what her religious beliefs are, or exactly how she was raised spiritually.

Of course it is my opinion; what other opinion should I give?


And there's also no reason for everything that's reported about Meghan to be overly questioned and criticized in a continually negative fashion. Sure, there are things to question and to discuss, but why all the negativity and harshly critical assumptions?


I don't see anything harshly critical about it.
It's pragmatic.
I don't think she cares much about any particular religion, so she'll gladly adopt the one her husband's family is associated with. (Just like Autumn did).
If you prefer to think she suddenly decided to embrace the COE due to a spiritual awakening, that is your opinion which is equally valid.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is my opinion; what other opinion should I give?

I don't see anything harshly critical about it.
It's pragmatic.
I don't think she cares much about any particular religion, so she'll gladly adopt the one her husband's family is associated with. (Just like Autumn did).
If you prefer to think she suddenly decided that to embrace the COE due to a spiritual awakening, that is your opinion which is equally valid.

Sure, but the point is that you are making critical assumptions. I said that I don't know one way or the other, but there's no evidence it was simply a gesture of respect. And again, I do believe Meghan's reported bond with the Archbishop is genuine. As others have already stated, despite reports and speculation in the media and the assertions and assumptions being made here, we don't know exactly what's in Meghan's heart. It's a private spiritual matter. We are not privy to her deepest thoughts, much less to her private interactions with Harry, and with the Archbishop or anyone else near and dear to her.

On this matter, I don't presume to know Meghan's motivations. However, I do regard her decision in a positive way, especially based on the little I know that's been reported about her and what I've seen her say in interviews and write about in articles. And from all evidence, I doubt there was anything 'sudden' about the decision Meghan made.
 
Last edited:
All this reminds me of the episode where George converts to Albanian Orthodox to marry this woman he met. The Bishop asks him what about the faith attracts you and George replies the hats. He likes the pointy hats.

Imo and it’s only my opinion, Meghan would have converted to any religion if it meant becoming Princess Harry. Harry is her pointy hat.



I do remember that episode ha ha. Yep agree. The one thing we will never know is would she have done this if she wasn’t marrying Harry I doubt it
 
Last edited:
I do remember that episode ha ha. Yep agree. The one thing we will never know is would she have done this if she wasn’t marrying Harry I doubt it
Guess we can say the same about all of the females who have married into European monarchies who have done the same as Meghan can we? Kate Middleton, Autumn Kelly, Crown Princess Mary, Princes Marie, Countess Alexandra, Queen Letizia etc etc etc
 
:previous: Yes, for most of them (but why only females?). You seem to think that those who suggest that Meghan's motivation to join the Anglican church is related to her marriage to her prince wouldn't say so for others. However, as already has been pointed out, of course this same issue was raised previously.

Although the distance between previous and royal life in this respect differ quite a bit between:
- those who changed between protestant denominations while already being confirmed within their church of origin (Mary?)
- those who were already members of the same church but not yet confirmed (Catherine) (or confirmed but clearly not an active member as shown by not marrying within their church the first time) (Letizia)
- those who changed from orthodox to catholic or the other way around (Sofia)
- those who changed from catholic to protestant or the other way around (Autumn, Henrik, Marie)
- those who were a member of a christian denomination (or non-churched) converting to Islam (most westerners marrying into Middle or Far Eastern royal families who adhere to Islam, incl recently Dennis Verbaas)
- those who never were a church member of any church and only joined upon the prospect of marriage (Meghan)

In addition, there are those who were already confirmed members of the royal family's preferred denomination (Stephanie) and others who decided to not join the royal family's church (Máxima).

Most of those marrying into a royal family become a member of the royal family's (preferred) denomination. So, a logical conclusion is that them becoming part of it is a major reason to join that church. This question is faced by many who get married (not only royals), so I am glad that the couples decide to be members of the same church. Assuming that all of them did so because they concluded that their new church's teaching was more true than their previous church's teaching or that they suddenly became christian or muslim seems farfetched to me. It may be true for some of them but most likely not for all.
 
Basically, I think everyone's opinion on the matter of Meghan's baptism and confirmation could be right. We know she has formalized her connection to the Church of England with the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This has made her a public communicant within the CoE. It will be the religion she actively practices.

Underlining it all is her spirituality which is a private matter and not for public consumption. Religion is something you practice. Spirituality is something you live. I can't help but at this time remember the passing of Prince Henrik of Denmark who converted from Roman Catholicism to the Lutheran church of Denmark in his public life but we've also found out that he embraced Buddhist concepts. We never know what a person's "truth" is or a person's spiritual nature unless we really get to know the person.
 
Guess we can say the same about all of the females who have married into European monarchies who have done the same as Meghan can we? Kate Middleton, Autumn Kelly, Crown Princess Mary, Princes Marie, Countess Alexandra, Queen Letizia etc etc etc
^^^Exactly. The mental gymnastics online to separate her as completely different is rather...:ermm:

Meghan DID Attend Church Services, was a church goer even before she’d ever met Harry.

She went to a christian school.

As has been reported, her parents have christian roots, as in, they did belong to different denominations of the Protestant faction of the christian church.

Some people were baptised as babies, doesn’t mean they or their parent(s) lead christian lives. A lot of people have their babies baptised as part of a tradition and not necessarily because they have faith. It’s not my place to judge.

Plenty christians get baptised / confirmed later on in life and that doesn’t mean they never had faith in Christ before then and it certainly didn’t make them any less children of God, so long as they have faith in Christ. It takes a specific type to suggest otherwise.

People can be be very religious, go church every single Sunday and still have dark hearts, still be unkind by nature... People can go church every now and then, have faith and belief within their hearts, pray in their hearts within the home or wherever and still be a true follower of Christ.

Being a yoga enthusiast doesn’t make you any less of a christian. Being a free spirit doesn’t preclude a person as a believer in Christ either, nor does getting wed in a registry or on a beach somewhere sunny etc.

Different churches are set up for different reasons. The Church of English has its origins in adultery but I wouldn’t suggest that makes it any less of a christian church. Christ is a forgiving, loving, welcoming body after all and NOT mean-spirited. Or sanctimonious.

The true flock of Christ understands this and lead by example.
 
Basically, I think everyone's opinion on the matter of Meghan's baptism and confirmation could be right. We know she has formalized her connection to the Church of England with the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury. This has made her a public communicant within the CoE. It will be the religion she actively practices.

Underlining it all is her spirituality which is a private matter and not for public consumption. Religion is something you practice. Spirituality is something you live. I can't help but at this time remember the passing of Prince Henrik of Denmark who converted from Roman Catholicism to the Lutheran church of Denmark in his public life but we've also found out that he embraced Buddhist concepts. We never know what a person's "truth" is or a person's spiritual nature unless we really get to know the person.

Said it much better than I could :flowers:
 
The Church of England has its origins in adultery

Whilst it's true that the Papal refusal to grant Henry viii the divorce he sought was A reason, I would suggest the real causes were altogether more various - The widespread dissatisfaction with perceived corruption and usery within the Catholic Church, amongst the English populace,a growing sense of England as a 'nation apart' [cf Brexit] from mainland Europe [and powerful in its own right], and CRUCIALLY Henry's own rapacity.
He had spent the vast amount of Money garnered by his miser Father- mainly on War, but also on splendid and NUMEROUS Palaces, and he needed a new source of largesse with which to keep his nobility loyal, being the son of a usurper. Where better than the fabulously wealthy, deeply unpopular Roman Church with its land holdings and monasteries BURSTING with Treasure ? All this could [and would] be redistributed to secure loyalty..

Protestantism was the 'coming thing' in Northern Europe and i've no doubt Henry would have broken with Rome even without his need for a Divorce.
 
Last edited:
Whilst it's true that the Papal refusal to grant Henry viii the divorce he sought was A reason, I would suggest the real causes were altogether more various - The widespread dissatisfaction with perceived corruption and usery within the Catholic Church, amongst the English populace,a growing sense of England as a 'nation apart' [cf Brexit] from mainland Europe [and powerful in its own right], and CRUCIALLY Henry's own rapacity.
He had spent the vast amount of Money garnered by his miser Father- mainly on War, but also on splendid and NUMEROUS Palaces, and he needed a new source of largesse with which to keep his nobility loyal, being the son of a usurper. Where better than the fabulously wealthy, deeply unpopular Roman Church with its land holdings and monasteries BURSTING with Treasure ? All this could [and would] be redistributed to secure loyalty..

Protestantism was the 'coming thing' in Northern Europe and i've no doubt Henry would have broken with Rome even without his need for a Divorce.


I don't think Henry VIII would have broken with Rome under different circumstances. He was not a believer in Protestant theology and did little to advance Reformed worship and practices while he was king. I do think, however, that England would have become Protestant (eventually) under Henry VIII's successors.

As it is often the case with human behavior, people are drawn to certain causes for multiple reasons. At the time of the Reformation, there were genuine believers in the cause, most notably among the Calvinist middle class and those former members of the (Catholic) clergy who embraced the new faith. Among the Protestant royalty and high nobility, although there were also some truly devout Protestants, my impression is that most were at best moderate sympathizers who were guided by other pragmatic concerns, including political and economic interests.
 
Last edited:
Guess we can say the same about all of the females who have married into European monarchies who have done the same as Meghan can we? Kate Middleton, Autumn Kelly, Crown Princess Mary, Princes Marie, Countess Alexandra, Queen Letizia etc etc etc

Princess Charlene belongs on that list as well.

I think this is just another thing that people are using to try to be critical of Meghan, just as they did to Catherine before her. People all around the world have converted or not when they've married. It's a personal choice.

Many, many years ago my then Protestant mother and her best friend both married men who were Catholic. My mother converted, her friend didn't. All the kids in both families were raised Catholic. Personal choice.
 
Last edited:
Princess Charlene belongs on that list as well.

I think this is just another thing that people are using to try to be critical of Meghan, just as they did to Carherine before her. People all around the world have converted or not when they've married. It's a personal choice.

Many, many years ago my then Protestant mother and her best friend both married men who were Catholic. My mother converted, her friend didn't. All the kids in both families were raised Catholic. Personal choice.

Just as a side comment, the bride doesn't have to convert to marry a Catholic, but I believe a couple can't get married in a Catholic Church unless they promise to raise future children as Catholics. Whether they will keep that promise or not is a another matter entirely.
 
Last edited:
Just as a side comment, the bride doesn't have to convert to marry a Catholic, but I believe a couple can't get married in a Catholic Church unless they promise to raise future children as Catholics. Whether they will keep that promise or not is a another matter entirely.
In the past yes, but currently only the Catholic spouse has to promise to try to raise any children in the Catholic faith. Some priests are more flexible than others with requirements and rules though.
Same "rules" apply to grooms as well as brides.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom