[Dixonary] OT: A Q for the UK players

[Dodi Schultz]

In talking about the goings-on over on your side of the pond, a
question's come up over here: What determines the title of the spouse of
a British monarch?

==> The wife of King George VI was, I think, known as Queen, was she not?

==> The husband of Queen Elizabeth II is known as Prince (not King).

==> The wife of Charles, when he becomes King, will (I believe I've
read) not be known as Queen. Is that correct? If so, what will be
Camilla's title? Princess?

==> The wife of William, when he becomes King, will (again, I believe
I've read) be known as Queen. Is that correct?

Can you explain?

—Dodi

[Tim Bourne]

On 29/04/11 18:10, Dodi Schultz wrote:
> ==> The wife of King George VI was, I think, known as Queen, was she not?
>
Yes, and that is the normal practice for the wife of a king.

> ==> The husband of Queen Elizabeth II is known as Prince (not King).
>
Yes, and to date that has been the invariable practice for the husband of a reigning queen, e.g.
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.

> ==> The wife of Charles, when he becomes King, will (I believe I've
> read) not be known as Queen. Is that correct? If so, what will be
> Camilla's title? Princess?
>
Camilla is known as the Duchess of Cornwall, not as Princess. I think this was (is) a concession to
public opinion, as she was seen as the cause of the breakdown of the marriage of Prince Charles and
Princess Diana. If she had lived and the marriage had lasted, when Charles became king she would
have become Queen Diana, I believe. Camilla's case is the exception to the normal rule.
..
> ==> The wife of William, when he becomes King, will (again, I believe
> I've read) be known as Queen. Is that correct?

Yes.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

[Dodi Schultz]

Thanks much, Tim, for the rundown below. Do you know WHY wives of
reigning monarchs get the top title, while husbands don't? I.e., why
didn't Albert, and why didn't Philip, get to be called King?

—Dodi



Tim Bourne wrote:
> On 29/04/11 18:10, Dodi Schultz wrote:
>> ==> The wife of King George VI was, I think, known as Queen, was she
>> not?
>>
> Yes, and that is the normal practice for the wife of a king.
>
>> ==> The husband of Queen Elizabeth II is known as Prince (not King).
>>
> Yes, and to date that has been the invariable practice for the husband
> of a reigning queen, e.g. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.
>
>> ==> The wife of Charles, when he becomes King, will (I believe I've
>> read) not be known as Queen. Is that correct? If so, what will be
>> Camilla's title? Princess?
>>
> Camilla is known as the Duchess of Cornwall, not as Princess. I think
> this was (is) a concession to public opinion, as she was seen as the
> cause of the breakdown of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess
> Diana. If she had lived and the marriage had lasted, when Charles
> became king she would have become Queen Diana, I believe. Camilla's
> case is the exception to the normal rule.
> .
>> ==> The wife of William, when he becomes King, will (again, I believe
>> I've read) be known as Queen. Is that correct?
>
> Yes.

[Tim B]

> Do you know WHY wives of
> reigning monarchs get the top title, while husbands don't? I.e., why
> didn't Albert, and why didn't Philip, get to be called King?

I would guess it dates back to when only males could inherit the throne, but that's only a guess.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

[John Barrs]

Dodi

As Tim said... (in the old days) men were more important (and we still have
male preference primogeniture for the throne) so necessarily if there was a
feminine monarch then her husband could not be "king" because that would
make him above her and he has to remain as one of her subjects. On the other
side of the coin, if there is a reigning king then there is no competition,
his wife is always a subject of his. The problem has thus really arisen in
that we have no word for a female monarch other than the normal designation
of Queen as the topmost lady. We of course do use the word "consort"

Here is wikipedia's take on queens consort and its pretty much what I was
taught
"A *queen consort* is the wife of a reigning king. A queen consort usually
shares her husband's rank and holds the feminine equivalent of the king's
monarchical titles. Historically, queens consort do not share the king
regent's political and military powers. Most queens in history were queens
consort. The counterpart, queens regnant (queens in their own right), who
inherit the throne on the death of the previous monarch, are far fewer in
number.

Of course we have had some pretty important reigning queens - Boudicea
springs to mind (although there was someone whose name escapes me before
her) and Mary 1, Elizabeth 1, Mary 2 (of William and Mary), Anne, Victoria
and now ER 2

As powers behind the throne(!) Emma of Normandy will take some beating. She
was wife to two kings of England (Aethelred the Unreide) and Canute. Two of
her sons (one by each husband) became kings of England (HardiCanute and
Edward the Confessor) two stepsons (again one from each husband) also
became kings: and a great nephew was William of Normandy (The Conqueror)

JohnnyB

On 29 April 2011 20:50, Tim B <dixonary (AT) siam (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

>
> Do you know WHY wives of
>> reigning monarchs get the top title, while husbands don't? I.e., why
>> didn't Albert, and why didn't Philip, get to be called King?
>>
>
> I would guess it dates back to when only males could inherit the throne,
> but that's only a guess.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tim B.
>

[Paul Keating]

I'm not British, of course, and have only a republican foreigner's view on this issue, but it's worthwhile remembering that there have been only a few women who were queens of England in their own right. Not enough to make much of a precedent.

Leaving prehistory aside, first there was Elizabeth I (d. 1603), who never married ("The Virgin Queen"), probably because she couldn't.

The next was Mary II (d. 1694). She was forced by parliament to marry William of Orange (who was not even king of his own country, only stadtholder, meaning a sort of regent for a long-absent royal line) because he was the right religion. She was not his queen, but a "co-regnant": William would not have consented unless he could be King of England, but she was still queen in her own right. Nonetheless it was an outstanding political coup for the Dutch.

The next was Victoria (d. 1901) who married her first cousin, Albert, a minor German princeling. To his credit, it was by all accounts a deliriously happy marriage (a rare thing among royals), and, deprived even of Victoria's role as constitutional monarch, he had the good sense to invent the job of what the British now call "prince consort", espousing educational reform, abolition of slavery, and Good Things Generally. Sadly for Victoria, and the country, Albert died in his 40s: she spent the remainder of her reign as a reclusive widow.

The last was Elizabeth II, who married Philip, a prince of the deposed Greek monarchy (he was born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark) who, also much to his credit, took over Albert's mantle of prince consort. Given what precedent there was, he had little choice. Understand also that at the time it would have been unthinkable for the heir to the English throne to marry a commoner, despite the fact that the pool of available royalty was getting smaller and smaller.

It's a lot easier for women who marry men in line to the throne. They automatically become queen (OED: “queen: the wife or consort of a king”). Or up to now, they have done. I've seen at least one suggestion in a letter to the editor in a Dutch newspaper that when Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands, his wife, the Princess Máxima, should be called prinses-gemalin (Princess Consort) rather than queen. That is, of course, an idea that came from British royalty, though I think the republican who wrote the letter would be mortified to have that pointed out.

The simple fairy-tale principle that the king’s wife is queen can’t stand up to a society that countenances serial marriage. Which we do. We still call it divorce and remarriage. Just as we still talk about sunset, when we all know the sun isn’t really setting, it’s the horizon rising.

P


-----Original Message-----
From: Dodi Schultz
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] OT: A Q for the UK players

Thanks much, Tim, for the rundown below. Do you know WHY wives of
reigning monarchs get the top title, while husbands don't? I.e., why
didn't Albert, and why didn't Philip, get to be called King?

—Dodi



Tim Bourne wrote:
> On 29/04/11 18:10, Dodi Schultz wrote:
>> ==> The wife of King George VI was, I think, known as Queen, was she
>> not?
>>
> Yes, and that is the normal practice for the wife of a king.
>
>> ==> The husband of Queen Elizabeth II is known as Prince (not King).
>>
> Yes, and to date that has been the invariable practice for the husband
> of a reigning queen, e.g. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.
>
>> ==> The wife of Charles, when he becomes King, will (I believe I've
>> read) not be known as Queen. Is that correct? If so, what will be
>> Camilla's title? Princess?
>>
> Camilla is known as the Duchess of Cornwall, not as Princess. I think
> this was (is) a concession to public opinion, as she was seen as the
> cause of the breakdown of the marriage of Prince Charles and Princess
> Diana. If she had lived and the marriage had lasted, when Charles
> became king she would have become Queen Diana, I believe. Camilla's
> case is the exception to the normal rule.
> .
>> ==> The wife of William, when he becomes King, will (again, I believe
>> I've read) be known as Queen. Is that correct?
>
> Yes.

[Dodi Schultz]

Tim B wrote:

>> Do you know WHY wives of
>> reigning monarchs get the top title, while husbands don't? I.e., why
>> didn't Albert, and why didn't Philip, get to be called King?
>
> I would guess it dates back to when only males could inherit the
> throne, but that's only a guess.

Thanks, Tim!

—Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

John Barrs wrote:
> Dodi
>
> As Tim said... (in the old days) men were more important (and we still
> have male preference primogeniture for the throne) so necessarily if
> there was a feminine monarch then her husband could not be "king"
> because that would make him above her and he has to remain as one of
> her subjects. On the other side of the coin, if there is a reigning
> king then there is no competition, his wife is always a subject of
> his. The problem has thus really arisen in that we have no word for a
> female monarch other than the normal designation of Queen as the
> topmost lady. We of course do use the word "consort"
>
> Here is wikipedia's take on queens consort and its pretty much what I
> was taught
> "A *queen consort* is the wife of a reigning king. A queen consort
> usually shares her husband's rank and holds the feminine equivalent of
> the king's monarchical titles. Historically, queens consort do not
> share the king regent's political and military powers. Most queens in
> history were queens consort. The counterpart, queens regnant (queens
> in their own right), who inherit the throne on the death of the
> previous monarch, are far fewer in number.
>
> Of course we have had some pretty important reigning queens - Boudicea
> springs to mind (although there was someone whose name escapes me
> before her) and Mary 1, Elizabeth 1, Mary 2 (of William and Mary),
> Anne, Victoria and now ER 2
>
> As powers behind the throne(!) Emma of Normandy will take some
> beating. She was wife to two kings of England (Aethelred the Unreide)
> and Canute. Two of her sons (one by each husband) became kings of
> England (HardiCanute and Edward the Confessor) two stepsons (again one
> from each husband) also became kings: and a great nephew was William
> of Normandy (The Conqueror)

Thanks much, Johnny!

—Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

And thank you, Paul, for a nonBritish POV!

—Dodi


Paul Keating wrote:
> I'm not British, of course, and have only a republican foreigner's
> view on this issue, but it's worthwhile remembering that there have
> been only a few women who were queens of England in their own right.
> Not enough to make much of a precedent.
> Leaving prehistory aside, first there was Elizabeth I (d. 1603), who
> never married ("The Virgin Queen"), probably because she couldn't.
> The next was Mary II (d. 1694). She was forced by parliament to marry
> William of Orange (who was not even king of his own country, only
> stadtholder, meaning a sort of regent for a long-absent royal line)
> because he was the right religion. She was not his queen, but a
> "co-regnant": William would not have consented unless he could be King
> of England, but she was still queen in her own right. Nonetheless it
> was an outstanding political coup for the Dutch.
> The next was Victoria (d. 1901) who married her first cousin, Albert,
> a minor German princeling. To his credit, it was by all accounts a
> deliriously happy marriage (a rare thing among royals), and, deprived
> even of Victoria's role as constitutional monarch, he had the good
> sense to invent the job of what the British now call "prince consort",
> espousing educational reform, abolition of slavery, and Good Things
> Generally. Sadly for Victoria, and the country, Albert died in his
> 40s: she spent the remainder of her reign as a reclusive widow.
> The last was Elizabeth II, who married Philip, a prince of the deposed
> Greek monarchy (he was born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark) who,
> also much to his credit, took over Albert's mantle of prince consort.
> Given what precedent there was, he had little choice. Understand also
> that at the time it would have been unthinkable for the heir to the
> English throne to marry a commoner, despite the fact that the pool of
> available royalty was getting smaller and smaller.
> It's a lot easier for women who marry men in line to the throne. They
> automatically become queen (OED: “/queen:/ the wife or consort of a
> king”). Or up to now, they have done. I've seen at least one
> suggestion in a letter to the editor in a Dutch newspaper that when
> Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands, his wife, the
> Princess Máxima, should be called /prinses-gemalin/ (Princess Consort)
> rather than queen. That is, of course, an idea that came from British
> royalty, though I think the republican who wrote the letter would be
> mortified to have that pointed out.
> The simple fairy-tale principle that the king’s wife is queen can’t
> stand up to a society that countenances serial marriage. Which we do.
> We still call it divorce and remarriage. Just as we still talk about
> sunset, when we all know the sun isn’t really setting, it’s the
> horizon rising.

[Steve Graham]

Another question:

The CNN photos and CBS network videos of the couple driving off in a
top-down Bentley or whatever show a big, orange 'L' on the front of the car.

Could that possibly be the "Learner" warning to other drivers.

Steve Graham

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too
dark to read. Groucho Marx


-----Original Message-----
From: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com [mailto:dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf
Of Dodi Schultz
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:53 PM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] OT: A Q for the UK players

And thank you, Paul, for a nonBritish POV!

—Dodi


Paul Keating wrote:
> I'm not British, of course, and have only a republican foreigner's
> view on this issue, but it's worthwhile remembering that there have
> been only a few women who were queens of England in their own right.
> Not enough to make much of a precedent.
> Leaving prehistory aside, first there was Elizabeth I (d. 1603), who
> never married ("The Virgin Queen"), probably because she couldn't.
> The next was Mary II (d. 1694). She was forced by parliament to marry
> William of Orange (who was not even king of his own country, only
> stadtholder, meaning a sort of regent for a long-absent royal line)
> because he was the right religion. She was not his queen, but a
> "co-regnant": William would not have consented unless he could be King
> of England, but she was still queen in her own right. Nonetheless it
> was an outstanding political coup for the Dutch.
> The next was Victoria (d. 1901) who married her first cousin, Albert,
> a minor German princeling. To his credit, it was by all accounts a
> deliriously happy marriage (a rare thing among royals), and, deprived
> even of Victoria's role as constitutional monarch, he had the good
> sense to invent the job of what the British now call "prince consort",
> espousing educational reform, abolition of slavery, and Good Things
> Generally. Sadly for Victoria, and the country, Albert died in his
> 40s: she spent the remainder of her reign as a reclusive widow.
> The last was Elizabeth II, who married Philip, a prince of the deposed
> Greek monarchy (he was born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark) who,
> also much to his credit, took over Albert's mantle of prince consort.
> Given what precedent there was, he had little choice. Understand also
> that at the time it would have been unthinkable for the heir to the
> English throne to marry a commoner, despite the fact that the pool of
> available royalty was getting smaller and smaller.
> It's a lot easier for women who marry men in line to the throne. They
> automatically become queen (OED: “/queen:/ the wife or consort of a
> king”). Or up to now, they have done. I've seen at least one
> suggestion in a letter to the editor in a Dutch newspaper that when
> Willem-Alexander becomes King of the Netherlands, his wife, the
> Princess Máxima, should be called /prinses-gemalin/ (Princess Consort)
> rather than queen. That is, of course, an idea that came from British
> royalty, though I think the republican who wrote the letter would be
> mortified to have that pointed out.
> The simple fairy-tale principle that the king’s wife is queen can’t
> stand up to a society that countenances serial marriage. Which we do.
> We still call it divorce and remarriage. Just as we still talk about
> sunset, when we all know the sun isn’t really setting, it’s the
> horizon rising.

[Tim B]

> The CNN photos and CBS network videos of the couple driving off in a
> top-down Bentley or whatever show a big, orange 'L' on the front of the car.
>
> Could that possibly be the "Learner" warning to other drivers.
>

Yes, in the UK learner drivers have to display a L plate on front and rear of the vehicle.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

[Guerri Stevens]

In the category of "inquiring minds want to know": I was curious about
the line of succession. I looked up something that said Anne was ninth,
but I then found a list supposedly drawn up from some succession act.
The list is as follows:

1. Charles
2. William
3. Henry
4. Andrew
5. Beatrice
6. Eugenie
7. Edward
8. James
9. Louise
10. Anne

If this list is correct, Anne is 10th, not 9th.

At any rate, I don't understand the list. It makes sense to me that when
Queen Elizabeth dies, assuming Charles is living, he would succeed her.
And it makes sense to me that when he dies, his son William would
succeed him. William may have children and I suppose the list may change
at that point.

But I am trying to figure out what the list really is. My original
thinking was that it describes the succession *at the death of
Elizabeth*. So that if Charles predeceased her, the list says his sons
would be next in line, if indeed the list represents successors to
Elizabeth. It didn't make sense to me that Charles's sons had precedence
over Charles's siblings. I suppose the rationale is that if Charles were
alive, he'd be King and his sons would follow, therefore they are
entitled to follow even though he is dead.

It seemed to me that next in line after Charles should be Andrew,
Charles's younger brother, and if Andrew were not living it would be
Edward, the youngest son, and finally Anne. In other words, Elizabeth's
male children in order of birth, followed by her female child. And only
moving on to the next generation if all of Elizabeth's children
predeceased her.

Given that the males would have precedence over females, it makes even
less sense that Andrew's two daughters would precede Edward.



Guerri

Tim B wrote:
>
>> The CNN photos and CBS network videos of the couple driving off in a
>> top-down Bentley or whatever show a big, orange 'L' on the front of
>> the car.
>>
>> Could that possibly be the "Learner" warning to other drivers.
>>
>
> Yes, in the UK learner drivers have to display a L plate on front and
> rear of the vehicle.
>
> Best wishes,
> Tim B.
>

[Tim B]

> I suppose the rationale is that if Charles were
> alive, he'd be King and his sons would follow, therefore they are
> entitled to follow even though he is dead.

Yes, I think that must be the key principle. If that principle is applied each time there is a
choice, I think the list you quoted is correct. First choice is Charles, or his direct descendants.
Only if that line is empty does it pass on to Andrew and his descendants - and so on.

Best wishes,
Tim B.

[Tim Lodge]

Guerri

If you haven't found it already, there's a useful piece on succession
on the official website of the British Monarchy at:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx

The list it provides goes down to the 38th in line to the throne, who
is Princess Alexandra, a first cousin of the Queen. There's a family
tree at:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf

which is useful for working out who they all are - I get a bit
confused with all the Queen's grandchildren, great-nephews and great-
nieces, and cousins once and twice removed!

-- Tim L

[Dodi Schultz]

Tim Lodge wrote:

> If you haven't found it already, there's a useful piece on succession
> on the official website of the British Monarchy at:
>
>
http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx
>
>
> The list it provides goes down to the 38th in line to the throne, who
> is Princess Alexandra, a first cousin of the Queen. There's a
> family tree at:
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf
>
> which is useful for working out who they all are . . .

That's fascinating, Tim! I see, now, by checking the succession list
against the family tree, that males, and their direct descendants,
always take precedence, even if younger than their sisters. Queen
Elizabeth's second child (of four), Anne, is only tenth in the line of
succession, not only after her elder brother Charles and his sons but
also after her younger brothers Andrew and Edward and their children.

—Dodi

[Tim Lodge]

Dodi


> I see, now, by checking the succession list
> against the family tree, that males, and their direct descendants,
> always take precedence, even if younger than their sisters.

Yes. There are moves afoot at the moment to change that, but it will
require the approval of all the Commonwealth countries of whom the
Queen is head of state. It's also become bound up with the condition
that those in the line of succession are excluded if they marry a
Roman Catholic. Some Catholics see this as discrimination against
them, but since the Sovereign is head of the Church of England, the
hierarchy of the C of E is very much against changing it.

-- Tim L

[Dodi Schultz]

Tim Lodge wrote:

> It's also become bound up with the condition
> that those in the line of succession are excluded if they marry a
> Roman Catholic. Some Catholics see this as discrimination against
> them, but since the Sovereign is head of the Church of England, the
> hierarchy of the C of E is very much against changing it.
>
Yes, I noticed that provision in the piece on succession. I found myself
musing on the wording there—i.e., expressly forbidding marriage to a
Roman Catholic, as opposed to saying "must marry a Protestant". What if
someone in the royal line were to marry a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist,
agnostic, or atheist? There's no statement, actually, about forbidding
those, is there?

—Dodi

[John Barrs]

>What if someone in the royal line were to marry a Jew, Muslim, Hindu,
Buddhist, agnostic, or atheist? There's no statement, actually, about
forbidding those, is there?

I don't think atheism (small a) would matter. Atheism (big A) would be a
problem for the head of the "Established" Anglican Church. One wonders what
influence the Lords Spiritual would have in such a case.
(The House of Lords is formally called "The Lords Spiritual and Temporal"
The Lords Spiritual are the 26 peers - 2 Archbishops and 24 Bishops of the
Anglican Church who sit in the House of Lords - there are other particular
spirituals who are appointed on a case by case basis - The Chief Rabbi, a
Senior Methodist, some clergymen from Scotland and a Bishop from Armagh.
Former Archbishops of the Anglican Church are usually also given a life
peerage on retirement. There are no formal Roman Catholics (what I mean by
that is that Roman Catholics who have received Holy Orders are forbidden by
their own Canon Law from holding offices connected with the government of
any state other than the Vatican -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See>so no Catholic cleric can sit
in the House of Lords)

Prince Charles has already queered his pitch with a demand?/suggestion? that
he should be "Defender of Faiths" (note 's') - of course, he was not taking
into account the origin of the "Fid Def" on our coinage - it is a title
bestowed by the Pope.

[When the Reformation was in full swing on the Continent Henry VIII, who was
quite a scholar in his own right, wrote a paper against the reformation for
which the title Fidei Defensor was awarded to him by the Pope... Of course,
political realities and the need for an heir then led to a split with Rome
and the English Reformation but "Fid Def" has been on all British coinage
since then.]

JohnnyB


On 1 May 2011 00:14, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchultz (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:

> Tim Lodge wrote:
>
> It's also become bound up with the condition
>> that those in the line of succession are excluded if they marry a
>> Roman Catholic. Some Catholics see this as discrimination against
>> them, but since the Sovereign is head of the Church of England, the
>> hierarchy of the C of E is very much against changing it.
>>
>>
> Yes, I noticed that provision in the piece on succession. I found myself
> musing on the wording there—i.e., expressly forbidding marriage to a Roman
> Catholic, as opposed to saying "must marry a Protestant". What if someone in
> the royal line were to marry a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, or
> atheist? There's no statement, actually, about forbidding those, is there?
>
> —Dodi
>
>

[Paul Keating]

At the time of the Act of Settlement in 1701, there were only two important
religions in England. There had been nonconformists (such as Baptists and
Congregationalists) for about a century, who were tolerated, and there was a
tiny disfranchised Jewish community, but the primary dividing line was the
one that Henry VIII created with the English Reformation.

I'm sure it would not have crossed the mind of any Englishman at the end of
the 17th century to think to exclude other religions, let alone atheism.

Keep also in mind that marriages between couples of different religions were
not regarded with the same tolerance they are today: in many faiths,
conversion was then (and for conservatives still is) a prerequisite for
marriage.

At the time, marriage with a Catholic would have entailed a Catholic
upbringing for the children of the union, which in the succession would be
unthinkable. I think that still officially applies. It certainly did when I
proposed to my girlfriend. She turned me down, and we solved the problem by
living together and postponing marriage ... for 26 years.

P


-----Original Message-----
From: Dodi Schultz
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 1:14 AM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Re: OT: A Q for the UK players

Tim Lodge wrote:

> It's also become bound up with the condition
> that those in the line of succession are excluded if they marry a
> Roman Catholic. Some Catholics see this as discrimination against
> them, but since the Sovereign is head of the Church of England, the
> hierarchy of the C of E is very much against changing it.
>
Yes, I noticed that provision in the piece on succession. I found myself
musing on the wording there—i.e., expressly forbidding marriage to a
Roman Catholic, as opposed to saying "must marry a Protestant". What if
someone in the royal line were to marry a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist,
agnostic, or atheist? There's no statement, actually, about forbidding
those, is there?

—Dodi

[Guerri Stevens]

Thanks for the links. I guess the upshot is that Anne can forget about
becoming Queen!

Guerri

Tim Lodge wrote:
> Guerri
>
> If you haven't found it already, there's a useful piece on succession
> on the official website of the British Monarchy at:
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/Successionandprecedence/Succession/Overview.aspx
>
> The list it provides goes down to the 38th in line to the throne, who
> is Princess Alexandra, a first cousin of the Queen. There's a family
> tree at:
>
> http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Windsor%20family%20tree.pdf
>
> which is useful for working out who they all are - I get a bit
> confused with all the Queen's grandchildren, great-nephews and great-
> nieces, and cousins once and twice removed!
>
> -- Tim L
>

[Dodi Schultz]

John Barrs wrote:
> >What if someone in the royal line were to marry a Jew, Muslim, Hindu,
> Buddhist, agnostic, or atheist? There's no statement, actually, about
> forbidding those, is there?
>
> I don't think atheism (small a) would matter. Atheism (big A) would be
> a problem for the head of the "Established" Anglican Church. One
> wonders what influence the Lords Spiritual would have in such a case.

So you don't actually know what might have ensued if Catherine (wonder
why her nickname is spelled with a "K"; it should be "Cate") were, say,
a practicing Buddhist?

—Dodi

[Dodi Schultz]

Paul Keating wrote:
> At the time of the Act of Settlement in 1701, there were only two
> important religions in England. There had been nonconformists (such as
> Baptists and Congregationalists) for about a century, who were
> tolerated, and there was a tiny disfranchised Jewish community, but
> the primary dividing line was the one that Henry VIII created with the
> English Reformation.
>
> I'm sure it would not have crossed the mind of any Englishman at the
> end of the 17th century to think to exclude other religions, let alone
> atheism.
>
> Keep also in mind that marriages between couples of different
> religions were not regarded with the same tolerance they are today: in
> many faiths, conversion was then (and for conservatives still is) a
> prerequisite for marriage.

I realize all that, Paul. I was just wondering what might be the course
of action *today*, when it would certainly be possible for someone in
the line of succession to meet and marry someone of another religion,
other than Roman Catholic (or none at all). Would that be considered
acceptable? Or would that individual simply step out of line, as it were?

—Dodi

[Tim Lodge]

Dodi

I think the particular points about Roman Catholicism are that (1)
adherents are required to bring up their children in the RC faith and
(2) they owe allegiance to the Pope. I don't think those are
requirements of, say, Buddhism. It might not matter initially if a
Sovereign married a Roman Catholic and did not convert himself or
herself, but their children would become RC, and this would present
problems when one of them became Sovereign and head of the Church of
England.

You may already know that when Peter Phillips, son of Princess Anne,
married his wife Autumn, she renounced her Catholic faith to prevent
him and their children losing their places in the line of succession.
Someone in the press here pointed out that had - God forbid - a bomb
gone off in the Abbey during the marriage service, we might have ended
up with their baby daughter as Queen Savannah I.

It's all pretty theoretical, but endlessly fascinating!

-- Tim L

On May 1, 2:11*pm, Dodi Schultz <DodiSchu... (AT) nasw (DOT) org> wrote:
> John Barrs wrote:
> > >What if someone in the royal line were to marry a Jew, Muslim, Hindu,
> > Buddhist, agnostic, or atheist? There's no statement, actually, about
> > forbidding those, is there?
>
> > I don't think atheism (small a) would matter. Atheism (big A) would be
> > a problem for the head of the "Established" Anglican Church. One
> > wonders what influence the Lords Spiritual would have in such a case.
>
> So you don't actually know what might have ensued if Catherine (wonder
> why her nickname is spelled with a "K"; it should be "Cate") were, say,
> a practicing Buddhist?
>
> Dodi

[Chuck]

To add something else to the confusion, the wife of George the VI, the
late Queen Mother, was also known as Queen Elizabeth, but not
(obviously) as Queen Elizabeth II, so it appears non-reigning queens are
without number. I guess this is hinted at by "E II R".

- Chuck

On 4/29/2011 7:43 PM, Dodi Schultz wrote:
> John Barrs wrote:
>> Dodi
>>
>> As Tim said... (in the old days) men were more important (and we
>> still have male preference primogeniture for the throne) so
>> necessarily if there was a feminine monarch then her husband could
>> not be "king" because that would make him above her and he has to
>> remain as one of her subjects. On the other side of the coin, if
>> there is a reigning king then there is no competition, his wife is
>> always a subject of his. The problem has thus really arisen in that
>> we have no word for a female monarch other than the normal
>> designation of Queen as the topmost lady. We of course do use the
>> word "consort"
>>
>> Here is wikipedia's take on queens consort and its pretty much what I
>> was taught
>> "A *queen consort* is the wife of a reigning king. A queen consort
>> usually shares her husband's rank and holds the feminine equivalent
>> of the king's monarchical titles. Historically, queens consort do not
>> share the king regent's political and military powers. Most queens in
>> history were queens consort. The counterpart, queens regnant (queens
>> in their own right), who inherit the throne on the death of the
>> previous monarch, are far fewer in number.
>>
>> Of course we have had some pretty important reigning queens -
>> Boudicea springs to mind (although there was someone whose name
>> escapes me before her) and Mary 1, Elizabeth 1, Mary 2 (of William
>> and Mary), Anne, Victoria and now ER 2
>>
>> As powers behind the throne(!) Emma of Normandy will take some
>> beating. She was wife to two kings of England (Aethelred the Unreide)
>> and Canute. Two of her sons (one by each husband) became kings of
>> England (HardiCanute and Edward the Confessor) two stepsons (again
>> one from each husband) also became kings: and a great nephew was
>> William of Normandy (The Conqueror)
>
> Thanks much, Johnny!
>
> —Dodi
>
>

[Dodi Schultz]

Tim Lodge wrote:

> You may already know that when Peter Phillips, son of Princess Anne,
> married his wife Autumn, she renounced her Catholic faith to prevent
> him and their children losing their places in the line of succession.
> Someone in the press here pointed out that had - God forbid - a bomb
> gone off in the Abbey during the marriage service, we might have ended
> up with their baby daughter as Queen Savannah I.
>

You mean that Edward's four- and eight-year olds (Viscount Severn, #8,
and Lady Louse, #9) were both at the wedding? They precede Anne and her
descendants in the succession.

—Dodi

[Paul Keating]

Since there's no law about it, it's hard to say. The Windsors, and the
Church of England, have interfered before in the choice of partner of those
close to the throne, with generally unhappy results; maybe they would be
more circumspect now.

For those not in immediate line to the throne, one would think that
renunciation would be the easy way out. That is what the Dutch do (3 royals
have done it in the last 10 years). But for the heir apparent, educated from
birth to be king, that might be impossible.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dodi Schultz
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2011 3:22 PM
I realize all that, Paul. I was just wondering what might be the course
of action *today*, when it would certainly be possible for someone in
the line of succession to meet and marry someone of another religion,
other than Roman Catholic (or none at all). Would that be considered
acceptable? Or would that individual simply step out of line, as it were?

[Tim Lodge]

Dodi Schultz wrote:

> You mean that Edward's four- and eight-year olds (Viscount Severn, #8,
> and Lady Louse, #9) were both at the wedding? They precede Anne and her
> descendants in the succession.

Lady Louise [nice typo, BTW] was there - she was a bridesmaid. I
suspect that Victoria Coren, whose column I was quoting and who is
well-known for her sense of humour, conveniently forgot about Viscount
Severn in order to make a joke about Queen Savannah.

-- Tim L

[Dodi Schultz]

Tim Lodge wrote:
> Dodi Schultz wrote:
>
>
>> You mean that Edward's four- and eight-year olds (Viscount Severn, #8,
>> and Lady Louse, #9) were both at the wedding? They precede Anne and her
>> descendants in the succession.
>>
>
> Lady Louise [nice typo, BTW] was there - she was a bridesmaid. I
> suspect that Victoria Coren, whose column I was quoting and who is
> well-known for her sense of humour, conveniently forgot about Viscount
> Severn in order to make a joke about Queen Savannah.
>
> -- Tim L
>

Oh, dear. Apologies to the little Lady. This after having her kid
brother put ahead of her in the succession just because he's male.

Thanks for the explanation of the apparent omission, Tim.

This whole discussion has been really fascinating. To me, anyway.

—Dodi