If Prince Harry wants to marry a Catholic can he forfeit his right as 3rd to the throne?

Question

I've read some pretty crazy questions like, "can Prince William marry an American?" I can't think of any American that would be worthy of marring any European Prince or Princess. Even though we all recall that Dixon Boardman married Princess Arriana zu Hohenlohe-Langenburg and Grace Kelly married Prince Rainier of Monaco. I think that we also remember when Charles Spencer-Churchill, 9th Duke of Marlborough married Consuelo Vanderbilt. But a Prince in line to the British throne wouldn't need an American to be his wife.

You would have to begin with having a name like Boardman, Astor, or Vanderbilt before you thought of marring European Royalty.

With that said and others letting their imagination run away I am asking this question.

Suppose for one moment that Prince Harry decides that he is a Papist, wants to marry a New York Italian Roman Catholic, and wants to become a Knight of the Sovereign Military Order Of Malta. Would he forfeit his right as 3rd in line to the throne?

I'm an American too but it would take a lot of work and accomplishment for me to be worthy of marrying a princess. Perhaps after I complete my graduate degree and earn several Million like Mr. Boardman I ought to try for the daughter of a life peer?

Answer 1

Yes.

Sorry - were you expecting a more detailed answer? OK. The Act of Settlement 1701, which established the current line of succession to the British throne, stated that the monarch must be a Protestant descendant of Sophia of Hanover (at the time, heir to the throne, though she died before ascending), and that anyone who married a Catholic would be barred from the throne .

Answer 2

Yes, the prince can marry an American. The problem with Wallis Simpson was that she was a divorcee, not that she was an American. (That may have changed because Charles has married a very divorced Camilla, but she's English, maybe that makes a difference) The prince could also marry a poor American, you don't have to have a fancy rich name. What she WOULD have to be is an Anglican or at least, Anglican-friendly, which Roman Catholic is not, since they feel they are the only true church, and all others aren't. As Head of the Church of England, his Queen Consort would be highly visible in church-related ceremonies. If he becomes Papist, he would lose his claim to the throne, because the reigning soverign MUST be Anglican.

Answer 3

The Act of Settlement barred all monarchs from being or marrying a Catholic. It could be changed by another Act of Parliament and it is likely that it will be. It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of religion in the UK and you really can't have the monarch breaking her/his own laws. The circumstances that led to the ban on Catholics no longer exist even though they dominated English politics for 200 years from Henry VIII to George I.

The Queen has to approve royal marriages, particularly those in direct line to the throne. Marriages are usually arranged for the heir apparent - Charles and Diana for example. This could all change. There is no reason why royalty cannot marry a foreigner. The objection to Wallis Simpson was not that she was American but that she was divorced. It was expected that the King would marry a virgin thus ensuring that any children were his.

Answer 4

If Prince Henry (Harry) married a Catholic, YES, he would HAVE to give up his place in line for the Throne. There is precedent for this. Queen Elizabeth's own first cousin (The Duke of Kent, Prince Michael) married a Baroness from the Continent (mainland Europe) and HE had to give up his place in line to the Throne of England to do so. HOWEVER, if Princess Michael had LEFT the CATHOLIC CHURCH and converted to the Anglican Church (the Church of England) then he would still have been in line for the Throne. However, she would not do this. Only those married to people in the Anglican Church are eligible for the Throne, making sure that England stays out of the Catholic Church.

Princess Margaret was an embarrassment to the House of Windsor. She introduced divorce to it and kept her name and face in the scandal sheets. She expected everyone to stand when she walked into a room and WAITED TO SIT until everyone did, she was a joke. A sad one. Even the Queen often remarked that she didn't expect people to defer to her like they did to her sister!

Also, the ASTORS married into nobility! Study your history, many, many poor aristocrats married wealthy American heiress' to prop up their dwindling fortunes. There have been many Lord and Lady Astors.

Basically, there is no room for any royal who is not of the Church of England. Sorry. He would still be a royal but he would never inherit and if his children were raised Papist then neither would they.

Great question.

Answer 5

Well, as you yourself have pointed out, several Americans have married into royalty, and to be honest, I have to say I really don't see what makes Americans less worthy than others to become consorts. In my opinion, Princess Grace made an excellent consort in Monaco, far better than many of her predecessors, nor did she come from a particularly upper-class background - while her father was rich, they were definitely new money.

Also, just thought I might point out that while they aren't American, the majority of the royal consorts today were born commoners, many not in the country in which they will someday be queen: Crown Princess Mary (born Donaldson, Australia) of Denmark, Crown Princess Mette Marit (born Haraldson) of Norway, Princess Maxima (born Zorreguieta, Argentina) of the Netherlands, The Princess of Asturias (born Letizia Ortiz). For that matter, every consort in the British royal family in recent memory has been born a commoner with the sole exceptions of the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Marina of Kent. The Queen Mum, Diana, Sophie, Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duchess of Kent, the Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael were all born commoners, and yet (while some did not turn out so well) certainly the Queen Mum and the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester are renowned for their work as royals and have been tremendously successful consorts.

Interestingly, it is some of the royal born princesses who are somewhat less succesful - for instance, both Stephanie and Caroline of Monaco have embroiled their principality and long suffereing father in contraversy and embarrassment.

As to your question, yes, Harry would forfeit his right to the throne if he were to marry a Catholic, American or otherwise. However, he could marry a woman who later converted to Catholicism without losing his place in the succession (as in the case of the Duke of Kent).

And just a note - people don't say Papist anymore - it's offensive.

Answer 6

Yes, I believe that under the current rules of succession, he would have to stand aside from any claim to the throne.

But of course these things do change.

The Queen's uncle was forced to stand down from the throne because he married a divorcee (Wallis Simpson), but Prince Charles has now married a divorcee whose ex-husband is still alive and he will ascend to the throne one day.

The order of succession is, after all, only a set of written laws and ~ as we all know ~ laws can be changed!

Best wishes :-)

Answer 7

That's not actually so,new laws allow roman catholic as long as they are royal bloodline children.The fact is his children would be prodestant and his wife would have to become prodestant or orthodox in respect.But she could remain in prayful religion habit to catholic formation.Katherine Middleton and George is not inline to assume because kate is peasant and George s their son so neither will assume. Henry is right after his grandmother.Not Charles or William or even George.....Royal must marry royal to make royal children.William did not marry royal .He married peasant.Which denies George and William and Katherine from the house of Winsor-Mountbeccan to be king.......

Answer 8

i take offense to your saying that no american is "worthy" of a royal. shouldn't it be that a royal is "worthy" of an american? don't they need new blood into the stale house of windsor? anyway, if harry marries WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE QUEEN OR ROYAL PROTOCOL harry loses it all. just look as what happened (or could've happen) to margaret when she was thinking of marrying her captain of the household guards back in the early 1960s (my memory has taken leave so i don't recall his name). i felt sorry for her until i read that she could've had her way but she would've renounced it all & live like a commoner. she wanted it all & the cake, too. she settled for second best & got screwed in the process. things have lightened up a bit w/the royals but not that much. yeah! out of religion? out of favor! but that shouldn't stop him because he is so far from the crown he might as well do as he wants unless he's for the $$$ & nothin' else!

Answer 9

I honestly don't know as much about British royalty as ...say someone from that area.....
..but I would say that since this woman wouldn't be from a well known house hold that has any kind of historical background.....or have any ties to royalty whatsoever, that he would be giving up his right to the throne.

Answer 10

His Royal Highness Prince "Harry" will, I hope, marry the person he loves and endears the most.