|
Peter Phillips, the Queen's eldest grandson, and son of the Princess Royal, has married his Canadian bride Autumn Kelly in Windsor Castle's St George's Chapel on Saturday, 17 May, 2008.
Peter Phillips has spent some considerable time in Australia.
Unless otherwise indicated, the following details are from the BBC .
The bride was attended by six bridesmaids, including Peter's sister Zara Phillips, in sage green dresses by Vera Wang.
Her husband does not have a royal title because Princess Anne turned down the Queen's offer of honours for both her children.
The couple met in 2003 at the Montreal Grand Prix where they were both working.
Among those watching the couple exchange vows were The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales, the Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Harry, his girlfriend Chelsy Davy, and Prince William's girlfriend Kate Middleton.
Prince William was unable to attend because he is in Kenya at the wedding of a friend.
Princess Eugenie read Shakespeare's sonnet 116 and Patrick Kelly, the bride's half-brother, read from Chapter 3 of St Paul's Epistle to the Colossians.
About 70 of the 300 guests flew over from Canada for the occasion.
The service was followed by a reception and dance at Frogmore House in Windsor in a horse-drawn carriage. His bride, a management consultant who converted to Anglicanism, wore a dress by London designer Sassi Holford with a full veil, a tiara on loan from her mother-in-law Princess Anne, and a necklace and earrings from Mr Phillips.
....the succession....
According to the London Daily Telegraph of 1 May, 2008, Mrs Phillips decided to convert after months of receiving “pastoral advice” at Windsor.
One royal source told The Telegraph: "She was not asked to do this, she did it of her own accord."
Her decision means that Mr. Phillips remains eleventh in the line of succession to the Thrones of the sixteen Realms, including Canada and Australia.
Under the law relating to the succession, the Act of Settlement, 1701, neither a Catholic nor a person married to a Catholic may succeed. This law was enacted by Parliament to entrench the settlement of the constitutional system achieved in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which they feared would be reversed by the restoration of James II or his descendants, a fear of France and Spain as the principal Catholic powers of Europe, and the maintenance of an established reformed national church.
None of these factors are considered of relevance today by most in the United Kingdom, and of course, they do not bear on the situation in any of the Realms.
If this law is to be changed, it is for the politicians of each of the Realms to initiate this. The British government has twice declined to adopt proposals for change in recent times, pleading on the first occasion, the pressure on parliamentary time.
We propose to return to the issue of the Act of Settlement in a later column. Suffice to say at this time that those republican politicians in Australia who try to use it as a reason for the shredding of our constitutional system are not being honest.
They have never attempted to do what is within their grasp: initiate a process for amendment.
This is the sort of behaviour that only lowers the public’s esteem for our politicians, which is unfair on those who try to perform their duties honestly.
1. Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 19-05-2008 14:13
A river, once diverted, from its original course,is never the same again and the same can be said for history. The deposition and murder of Richard 11 in 1399 by the usurper Henry of Lancaster, later Henry 1V, engendered a greater blight on the throne - the Tudor dynasty.
There is in-sufficient space here to detail the many incidents that occurred because of Richard 11's deposition but the betrayal to death of Richard 111, the true king of England at Bosworth in 1485 was a major turning and the judicial murder in 1649 of Charles 1 by Cromwell and Parliament was another.
The Church OF England once was the Church IN England - part of the Church of Rome. It exists in its current form as an independent body by virtue of the actions of a spoilt brat who could not get his own way - Henry V111 [ 1509-47 ].
I have said for many years that the primacy of the Anglican Church should rest completely with Canterbury, as it was in past times - having its headship in a person un-ordained is, in my view, an un-natural thing.
That said, I believe the British monarch should be a Christian but have the choice of his denomination, as is permitted to his subjects.
Very secular greed and self interest, wanting to hold on to ill gotten church lands after the Dissolution, was the prime motivation in wanting to ensure Catholicism lost out in England. I'm afraid religious faith had not much to do with it.
Both the Tudor Supremacy Act and the post 1688 Succession Act should be consigned to history's deleted file. |
2. Royal marriage to a Canadian
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 19-05-2008 18:52
Perhaps, Mr Deshon, the disestablishment of the Church of England would be the simplest solution to this question.
However, as the UK today is a multicultural, pluralist society like Australia, your belief that "the British monarch should be a Christian" could be interpreted as being intolerant.
If the monarch should be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic, then why not a Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? The UK is increasingly becoming a secular society in terms of the numbers who actually practise their religion as compared to those who profess being a member of a particular faith.
The question, I think, turns on the monarch being the Head of the Church of England and of his or her children also being raised as Anglicans since the head of the Church of England, if (s)he were also a Roman Catholic, would owe his or her primary allegiance to the spiritual leader of another Christian denomination.
What I would ask you is this:
The Queen of Denmark is married to a French prince, who is a Roman Catholic and their children are Lutherans. (Did not Tasmanian Mary Donaldson, whose Scottish parents are/were members of the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian, not also become a Lutheran?)
The King of Spain is married to a Greek princess, who is Orthodox, and their children are Roman Catholics.
No one questions the fact that in both these cases, the children of the monarch are baptised in the major Christian denomination of their country. So why should things be different in Britain?
I do not know what faith the Greek-born Duke of Edinburgh was raised in, but his children are Anglicans.
I have no objection to any children of a British monarch marrying a person of a different faith, but I feel that it is incumbent on the spouse-to-be to agree to the children of their union being brought up as Anglicans. |
3. Written by Roger Edward DESHON, on 20-05-2008 09:42
May I reply to Mr Eric Brown?
For centuries monarchs and common folk in Britain were of the Roman Catholic faith and the church sustained you from cradle to grave. What was the problem?
There are, to my knowledge, no plans for an Armada to sail up the Channel in this day and age. If the monarch wishes to be a Roman Catholic or any other denomination of the Christian faith then they should be allowed to have the choices allowed to their subjects.
I see no problem with Protestants having a Catholic King. As for intolerance, could it not be said that, in your view, the children of the monarch should be Anglican is as intolerant as the insistence of the RC Church that any children born of a mixed faith marriage must be Christened Catholic?
For the record, I am a former Anglican now Roman Catholic.
As to multi-culturalism, I believe the UK - and Australia for that matter - should have the Christian faith enshrined as the national faith and let everyone reside under that umbra while peaceably maintaining their own traditions and faith. peaceably |
4. REVELATION
Written by
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
, on 20-05-2008 15:56
Christianity changed the world because of its revelation, not its "faith". The undergirding revelation was that: All power & authority arose from within the individual, not externally to the individual, as all other religions believed then, as most still do.
Unless there has been a new recent discovery, all doctrine and philosophy arise from one or other these beliefs, which then becomes a faith. The tragedy is that all so called "Christain faiths", have abandoned this revelation, creating the vacuum that is being filled by the religions who believe All power and authority arises external to the individual, exactly where we were before the Christian revelation.
The spirit is either incarnate, or still wandering around at random in space. |
Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.6
AkoComment © Copyright 2004 by Arthur Konze - www.mamboportal.com
All right reserved |
Comments (4)
