The Right To Wear White: What If A Catholic Could Succeed?
Written by Dr. Janice Seto
Monday, 10 September 2007
Page 4 of 4
Today their strongest claimant is represented by the Bavarian royals.
The head of the family is Duke Franz, his heir is his brother, Duke
Max, who like Mr Bennet, has five daughters.
The Wittelsbach duchesses
are lovely, one of whom, Marie-Caroline, is married to a duke, Philip
of Wurtemburg. It is from this family that Queen Mary hailed through a
morganatic line.
Many of the Wittelsbach women have made their mark on history, the most famous being Sissi, Empress Elisabeth of Austria.
Philip's eldest daughter is the lively and educated Sophie, now HRH the
Hereditary Princess of Liechtenstein. In time, perhaps when her husband
Prince Alois succeeds his father Hans Adam as sovereign prince, Sophie
as consort of Liechtenstein will also be the chief Catholic claimant to
the UK....now that would be quite a State Visit to Britain!
Gordon
Brown is right to be cautious in refusing to ignite fresh debate about
the ban on members of the Royal Family marrying Catholics whilst
retaining their claim, however distant, to the throne.
If the Act of Succession were ever repudiated, with the Windsors
possibly becoming unpopular with their drunken antics or questionable
taste in marriage partners, there could well be a clamour to say
goodbye to the relatively modern family 'The Windsors', to replace them
instead with an heir with a very strong historical claim.
Amid newspaper headlines and debate about the worthiness of one family
over another, the Jacobean dynasty would occupy Buckingham Palace –
Sophie already has four photogenic children ready to wave to the crowds
from the balcony. She is dazzling and dignified in white.
You may ask why these Stuarts are called the Jacobeans?
Comment: Thomas, may I say that this is the most agreeable post I have read from your good self.
Name: Thomas
Comment: If there are any Brits posting here who feel strongly about this issue, they should contact their MP immediately. A lot of sputtering but no action...as is usual for most of these so-called 'conroversies'.If one studies UK constitutional history and theory, one finds that the underlying principle established in these acts from 1688-1702 is that Parliament regulates the succession to the Throne; that is, neither the RF nor some vague 'the people' (whoever THEY are).The Lord Chancellor made some very trenchant remarks concerning this recently-as did an editorial in the Daily Telegraph. Can a left-wing Labour gov't be trusted with such fundamental "constitutional change"? Look what's happened with the House of Tony's cronies, er "Lords"!!Oh, and Mr Phillips does not actually renounce anything, his disqualification is automatic when he says "I will". And the Wessexes decision to call their daughter "Lady" rather than "Princess" while she is a minor (correct for a daughter of an Earl, and the original English practice) has nothing to do with Parliament...it's within HM preogative. The little nipper is indeed legally a Princess of the UK.
Name: shelley
Comment: Wars and other distractions is what it is all about. A catholic being a spouse to a monarch will not happen in our lifetime, the entire premise of The Church of England would be undermined, as would the Windsor claim to the throne. I do think that we might see the "oldest child" instead of the oldest son, it has more of a chance to fly. There are a great many people who would be glad to see The Princess Royal become our next Queen, rather than Mrs Parker Bowles.
Name: Jean Sue Libkind
Comment: Thanks to Dr. Seto for her excellent and concise article; I've always been a little confused over this split in the succession (in history books, it is always surrounded by wars and other distractions).
Surely Parliament could make a law accepting Catholic spouses in the future just as other countries have made the switch to the oldest child succeeding instead of the oldest son. It's a simple case of saying "from such-and-such a date forward, the following will apply."
Name: M-M
Comment: A good article on the historical aspects of the Act of Succession with it's awful anti-Catholic prejudice enshrined forever .
It seems very unlikely that anyone in the Parliament will ever be permitted to debate any aspect of the Royals - lest it open the Pandora's Box and allow the very Monarchy itself to be debated . IE Why have it at all ?
This is the ultimate fear of all Monarchists and so the RF would far rather simply announce what it's members will be known as ie Little Lady Louise Windsor who's name cannot be logically worked out from any previous criterion - she should really be Princess Louise or at the very least Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor . But the RF has spoken (informally ) ie no Act or LP was issued to avoid discussion .
In the same way Camilla will either be known as Princess Consort or Queen Consort according to how she rates in the polls at the time of Charles' Succession .
Name: Trudie
Comment: Joanne that was a very facinating history lesson. No wonder why there is so much confusion on what would happen if Peter were to retain his place in the line of succession if Autumn does not convert.
