Autumn Kelly and Peter Phillips
Posted on 08/06/2007 5:08:36 AM PDT by Petrosius
.- Peter Phillips, the Queen of England?s eldest grandson, may have to give up his place in the line of succession for the throne because his fiancée is Roman Catholic.
This past week Buckingham Palace announced the engagement between Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly, a Canadian management consultant, but no mention of a date for their marriage was made.
Even more interesting, is the fact that Autumn Kelly is Catholic. Ms. Kelly?s Catholicism brings to the light of day the 1701 Act of Settlement which bars any member of the Royal family from becoming or marrying Catholics. If Mr. Phillips has to renounce his rights to inherit the throne, it would be an embarrassment to the royal family and to the government.
Catholics have repeatedly called for a repeal of the act but thus far attempts to change the law have failed. Under the act, Mr. Phillips will be required to renounce his right to the throne -- he is 10th in line at present-- or Ms. Kelly will have to formally renounce her Catholic faith.
Buckingham Palace said yesterday that a wedding date had not been set and "if a decision has to be made, it will be made at the time of the marriage." Little is known about Ms. Kelly, who moved to Britain shortly after meeting Mr. Phillips at the Canadian Grand Prix in Montreal in 2003.
The Tablet, the Catholic weekly, has now established that she was baptized on June 18, 1978, at St. John Fisher parish church in Point-Claire, a suburb of Montreal. A spokesman for the church told the Daily Telegraph that Ms. Kelly's mother, Kitty, had authorized the information to be disclosed, saying that her daughter was proud of her religion.
Attempts to revoke the law have been made. John Gummer, a member of the Parliament who converted to Catholicism, tabled a Ten Minute Rule Bill in Parliament earlier this year in a bid to overturn the remaining anti-Catholic legislation.
Mr. Gummer said: "It is unacceptable that the part of the Christian church that has more active adherents than any other should be discriminated against in this way." In other comments, he slammed the law saying, "It is inhuman in the 21st century for anyone to demand this."
According to the Act, which discriminates uniquely against Catholics, there is nothing barring a monarch from marrying a Hindu, Muslim or someone from any other faith.
Kind of funny in light of the belief among many that Prince Charles has converted to Islam secretly.
Which, according to the last line of the article, would not be a bar to his becoming king...
Hope Momma outlives him!
When they behead the man who cuckholded Prince Charles, I’ll think this concern legitimate.
They are making more out of this than is necessary. Large portions of the Kent (the Queen's uncles and cousins) family have married Catholics and converted and this hasn't caused any controversy. To call Peter Phillips an "heir" to the throne is a real stretch when you consider how many people are ahead of him and that when Princes William and Harry have children, he will move even further down the list.
Well considering he calls himself “Mr”. Phillips, I really don’t see what the problem is.
I had no idea they had a law like this. It’s absolutely absurd! Considering some of the disgust with Catholicism around here, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
I hope Mama just says, “My son, Charles, is a hopeless tw*t,” and passes him over altogether.
Isn’t it time for England to drop their discrimination and persecution against Catholics?
Isn’t it time for England to drop their discrimination and persecution against Catholics?
______
I’m with you on the discrimination charge, but wonder about the persecution. Examples?
It had to do with religious wars and power struggles in England, the belief in the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary and elective monarchs. When Charles II died, no one wanted his brother as King. The succession was a mess for years. Finally, the law passed in 1701 settled the question of succession.
The Right to be King: the Succession to the Crown of England, 1603-1714
Thank you for the history lesson! ;o) I do understand why they may have had it in the past but it seems extremely silly now!
Considering Charles resumed relations with Camilla VERY shortly after his marriage, a bit more guilt for cuckoldry would seem to rest with him than with his wife, who did not cheat until quite a bit later.
It is truly silly now. Maybe this will move them to get rid of an archaic law.
Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable about British law can educate us all on this. My understanding is that it is a lot more complicated than just who can, and who cannot, be in the line of succession. It has to do with the Established Church (Anglican). Overturning the Act of Succession would also basically do away with England’s having an Established Church. For a lot of us Americans, that seems like a totally logical idea, but the English - most of whom never darken the doors of an Angican Church - seem to take all that very seriously. It’s also tied in with the Monarchy. Established Church = Monarchy.
It made sense in 1701, given the experience with James II and the war with Louis XIV. But as in America, the anti-Catholicism goes deeper. Back in 1940, Winston Churchill ws barred from any social connection with the archbishop of Westminster, even though they were personal friendly, and Churchill could not stand the sitting archbishop of Canterbury.
This is ridiculous, and should be repealed, especially in light of the Prince of Wales marriage to Camilla, and the fact that they could marry a Muslim!!!
Isn’t it a form of persecution that Catholic adoption agencies that operated for over a century and are responsible for placing thousands of children in good homes, now have to close their doors because the British government forces them to equally consider homosexuals and lesbians as parents for adoptees? But I can’t criticize the Brits, because we’re doing the same thing in the USA.
I wasn’t taking sides; I was referring to the ancient laws of England, which demand that any man who cuckholds the king, or in any way “pollutes” the royal lineage must be hanged. Charles is an adulterer; Diane’s riding instructor (no kidding, he taught how to ride horses, so now jokes about, “Say, Diana, why the long face?”) bespoiled the British crown. The heirs to the throne are of barely royal blood, and half-breeds at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.