Are there any laws preventing a member of the royal family (especially an heir to the throne) from marrying someone outside of their race? Assuming that the person is Anglican, not a divorcee, etc., could such a marriage occur? And, I will expand my question. Were it to be legal - what would be the consequences nonetheless?
There is nothing to prevent a member of the Royal Family from marrying a person of another race. Also if somebody tried to stop this marriage because of the person’s race they would be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act or similar anti-discrimination legislation. Don’t forget that Princess Diana nearly married an Egyptian subject (Dodi) and even Prince Philip could be classed as another race because he is Greekand not a WASP.
There is nothing to prevent a member of the Royal Family from marrying a person of another race. Also if somebody tried to stop this marriage because of the person’s race they would be prosecuted under the Race Relations Act or similar anti-discrimination legislation. Don’t forget that Princess Diana nearly married an Egyptian subject (Dodi) and even Prince Philip could be classed as another race because he is Greekand not a WASP.
Greek? Let’s not mince words. I am thinking more along the lines of someone of Asian or African ancestry, and Diana had loss her HRH status upon her divorce from the Prince of Wales if I am not mistaken, and she was never in line to inherit the throne.
No, no-Di & Chuck were only separated. Her impending divorce suit was liable to cause either embarrasment or a constitutional crisis for the royal family, due to the fact that the monarch is also the titular head of the Church of England, which does not recognize the validity of divorces. [Extreme paranoia]Rather convenient for them that she died when she did, in that so-called ‘traffic accident’.[/Extreme paranoia] :rolleyes:
?? They were divorced in August 1996 - It was in a few papers, and I think might have even been mentioned on television briefly.
AS I understand it, nobody in any royal or maybe even just noble family anywhere, let alone England, can marry without the permission of a person who is recognized as head of the family. For instance one must ask one or more of the claimants to the Throne of Russia for permission to marry if one is related to the Throne. I mean to the claimant. Each German principality has some head of that family who must be asked. The current comte de Paris is presumably the head of the Bourbon family and any Bourbon related to him has to get his permission to marry somebody. Then it is up to them whether they care what race the person wants to marry. So be sure to find out the name of the head of the family if you are thinking of marrying into it or your name will be mud and you won’t be asked to dinner.
Um …
The Church of England came about because Henry VIII wanted to divorce but as Catholic was not allowed to, so he created the Church of England, made everyone a member of that and divorced within it instead.
Thus the CoE very much recognises divorces.
Henry wasn’t seeking a divorce, but an annullment - a declaration that the marriage between him and Katherine of Aragon had been null and void from the start. The Roman Catholic Church has always accepted annullments as compatible with the Church’s teaching against divorce. However, for political reasons the Pope refused to grant Henry the annullment, which triggered the split. The new Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, declared that the marriage was annulled.
The Church of England carried with it much catholic doctrine, including the position on divorce. Traditionally, a divorced person could not remarry in the C. of E. while the person’s ex-spouse was alive. There has been a great deal of change in social attitudes to divorce, and many individual priests and bishops take a more liberal approach, but I believe the official position is still against re-marriage in the Church.
That causes problems for Prince Charles if he wants to marry Camilla Parker-Bowes. Charles could re-marry in the Church, since his ex-wife is no longer alive,* but Ms. Parker-Bowes’s ex-husband is still with us, so she could be denied the sacrament of marriage.
*I hope this doesn’t contribute to SCSimmons’ paranoia :eek:
Not denying that - I just wish someone had told my History teacher. Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived was what I was taught.
Perhaps he just went with “divorced” so he didn’t have to explain the difference between that and annullment.
Having said that, most sites on the web can’t decide if the marriages were anulled and if they were divorces either.
You are right about the doctrine though. My research has found that in 1536 the “Ten Articles” appeared that only listed three sacraments (Baptism, Penance and Eucharist) but by 1539 there had been the Act of Six Articles that brought most of the Catholic doctrine back.
Interesting. There’s my new stuff for the day learnt