One of the Queen’s uncles was named John, so it’s not like there’s a prohibition on it as a name.
That is odd. A person can marry a Catholic and be eligible for the throne, but he/she must remain a Protestant. Well, how does that work? My understanding of Catholicism is limited, but isn’t a person no longer considered Catholic if he/she marries outside of the church? And to marry in the church and remain a Catholic, the spouse must convert to Catholicism?
So it seems that either: 1) the person hasn’t married a Catholic because the Protestant marriage isn’t recognized by the Catholic Church, or 2) the person has married a Catholic and by definition is no longer a Protestant and ineligible.
As an American, the whole thing seems silly. Anyone want to defend the new or previous laws under any type of rational basis? Is it just tradition that since Henry VIII told the Pope to go pound sand that it has become a matter of English pride?
Look, if they were so uptight about names and bad luck, they would make the Duchess of Cambridge change her name first.
No, that’s not correct. A Catholic can marry a non-Catholic, and both can maintain their current religions. The Catholic Church does stipulate that any children of the marriage must be baptized and raised as Catholics, however.
This would raise an interesting situation for an heir to the British throne who married a Catholic :- any heirs he/she produced would, presumably, be Catholic.
Sorry to be dense, but what’s the reference to Wallis Simpson being yellow?
I took it as a satiric pile-on against all the prejudices of British society in the 30s: “She’s American!” “she’s divorced!” “I heard she was Chinese!” etc.
As long as we’re speculating about regnal names, Prince William Arthur Philip Louis has the following options open to him;
- William V: Probably what he’ll go with.
- Arthur/Arthur II: Pretty unlikely for the same reasons it is for his dad, though the idea of calling him “King Arthur” would probably be slightly less repugnant in his case.
- Philip/Philip II: Probably not, unless Charles decided to use the name first.
- Louis: The only time England has ever been ruled by a Louis is when Louis VIII of France briefly held the support of the barons during the revolution against King John, so it’s pretty unlikely he’d go with that name.
And his son, Prince George Alexander Louis, could conceivably go with;
- George VII/VIII: The most likely option, especially if Charles ends up becoming George VII.
- Alexander: There have been three kings Alexander of Scotland, but no one by that name has ever ruled England. It’d be an unorthodox choice, but a workable one.
- Louis/Louis II: Probably not going to happen for the reasons stated above, unless his dad goes with it first.
The 2nd child, whether boy or girl. By “not retroactive,” it means that it started with William’s baby and will go on from there, but it doesn’t apply to anyone else who is currently in line. So, Andrew (second son of QEII) is still next in line after Charles and all his progeny, and not Anne (second CHILD of QEII, but not male). This law doesn’t allow Anne to move up in line (more’s the pity).
So it goes Charles and his progeny
Then Andrew (3rd child but 2nd son) and his progeny
Then Edward (4th child but 3rd son and his progeny
Then Anne (2nd child but 1st daughter) and her progeny
In past centuries Catholics were perceived as presenting a clear and present danger to the body politic. Critics could point to the Powder Treason, which was the 9/11 of its day, and the Popish Plot (which almost certainly never existed outside the minds of Oates and Bedloe) and the Old Pretender and the Young Pretender, who both organised invasions of varying degrees of dangerousness. An attempt to mitigate the anti Catholic laws led to the Gordon Riots in the 18th c. and as late as the 1830s the repeal of the laws which barred Catholics from public office could still prompt hostility in conservative quarters.
Oh, he does, he really really does want to be King, and he will sit on that throne until he draws his last breath. As has been said, he’s been brought up from Day One with that aim, and has even had his knuckles rapped for speaking his mind in public (over things like architecture), simply because it’s not the done thing for the future monarch to be making controversial comments about anything. It might be a bit of an anti-climax for him, or a short reign, but I am absolutely sure he wants that throne, so as to be “complete”.
I think the fuss will not be the name Charles uses to reign under, but what his dear wife becomes - Queen Camilla? (Good enough for me, but the Daily Express and its readership might spontaneously combust clutching Saint Diana memorabilia)
Cold is God’s way of telling you to burn more Catholics!
Is there any circumstance Queen Elizabeth would abdicate, such as a debilitating injury? Is there any chance of a regency if Queen Elizabeth would be unable to discharge her duties?
Doubtful she would ever abdicate - she’s made it clear in the past that she views the monarchy as a lifetime commitment.
There is a process under the Regency Acts to handle the case of a monarch being unable to carry on the duties of the Crown. Five officials are given the power to declare that the monarch is incapacitated; at least three of the five have to agree, in writing, backed up by medical evidence. The five are: the sovereign’s spouse (ie Prince Phillip); The Lord Chancellor, a Cabinet post; the Speaker of the Commons; The Lord Chief Justice of England; and the Master of the Rolls.
There’s a TV series that’s been on for a couple of decades you may have heard of. It’s about an inexplicably yellow skinned family named Simpson.
What would happen if an heir to throne fell in love with a Catholic, who agreed to convert? Would that work? (Because I believe the Spanish royal family are also way down the line for the British throne)
‘Gay orgies in public’. Seriously?
It is beyond depressing that someone can still drop this shit bomb in a thread and not a single Doper calls him on it. Seems it really is taking longer than we thought.
Yes that would work, but they are removing the bar to Catholics anyway so it’s a moot point.
You may have missed the context of the statement, which is impediments to becoming monarch.
Marrying a Catholic would be far more serious- to many- than the actions listed.
Oh, I understood the context, and the contradiction implied by the CofE holding gay marriages (which they won’t be, BTW) and the monarch not being allowed to marry a Catholic (which they will be). I was objecting to the casually homophobic language of ‘gay orgies in the streets’. It’s akin to saying ‘hey, the King can marry black people, let’s throw some friend chicken parties’. What is depressing that this kind of offensive stereotype doesn’t even get noticed, even by you.
Now the problem is, what happens if Leonor marries George… trying to coordinate the royal duties of two countries would be a bitch!
Sure, drag us from the rarified milieu of upper-class England in the 1930s to this century’s pop culture swamp! 