Autumn Kelly renounces her catholic faith

Hah! Peter Phillips the royal she’s marrying would loose his place in line to the throne of england as she’s a catholic. He’s 10th or 11th in line to the throne, not like he’s next up or anything!!!

So to stop him losing his place in the que - she renounces her catholicism. :confused:

I hope he’s worth it. :eek:

Here is a newslink, as required by this forum.’s-fianc%C3%A9e-Autumn-Kelly-converts-to-save-succession.html

For one to renouce their faith, you would have to wonder just how strong a faith it was to begin with.

Other reports Ive read have described her and her family as ‘‘staunch’’ catholics :rolleyes:

Obviously a Prince and the lure of that pampered royal lifestyle just proved a little bit too much for her ‘‘stauncheness’’ :rolleyes:

And we can’t even ‘blame’ Henry VIII or Elizabeth I for this dictum. We have to go all the way to the year 1701.

James I and VI (I of England, VI of Scotland) was the Protestant son of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots, having succeeded to the Scottish throne at the age of 1 when his mother was forced to abdicate, and who never afterward saw her at all since she fled to England and was imprisoned by Elizabeth until her trial and execution in 1587.

James’ son Charles I, however, had Catholic leanings and married a Catholic (Henrietta Maria). Indeed, many people in England were lessening their ill will toward Catholicism because of the rise of the Puritans (who hated Catholics but also hated moderate Protestants as well and whose narrow, punitive, harsh and domineering Protestantism was legendary.) Under Cromwell they deposed and executed Charles on trumped up charges and Cromwell ruled England until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, about 2 years after the death of Cromwell.

James II and VII (II of England, VII of Scotland) succeeded to the throne on the death of his brother Charles II (the “restoration King”) in the 1680s. James had converted to Catholicism (and Charles had also converted before he died as well, but kept it quiet, being the pragmatic type). Though Charles had many issue out of wedlock (his mistresses included Barbara Duchess of Cleveland and Nelly Gwyn), his Queen Catherine was barren so there was no legal heir (Charles’ oldest illegitimate son James Duke of Monmouth led a rebellion against his uncle, James II in 1685 but this failed and he was executed). James’s first wife (who was a commoner, Anne, the daughter of Edward Hyde) had died; their issue were Mary (who married William of Orange) and Anne (who married Prince George of Denmark).

Mary and William had no children. Anne gave birth to 18 children, only one of whom lived beyond infancy (Prince William) but died at age 11.

When James married a second time to the Catholic Mary of Modena, ‘the people’ became concerned about the idea of a “Catholic heir” succeeding. (Anne and Mary were raised, and remained, Protestants, being forcibly taken from the ‘pernicious influence’ of their own father, then a Prince). Queen Mary and King James then had a son (James Edward) born in 1688 but some of the court (including Princess Anne) refused to believe in the birth and claimed that the true royal infant had been born dead and this SON 'smuggled in, in a warming pan."

James was deposed and fled with his family. This was termed the “Glorious Revolution.” William and Mary ruled jointly, having usurped/been offered the throne, and William ruled alone after Mary’s death to his own death in 1702. It was in 1701 that the Act of Settlement ruled that no Catholic could inherit the throne. Then Anne ruled after William’s death. Since she had no male (or female) heirs of the body, with her death the throne passed to the Elector of Hanover as the closest Protestant male heir (You know him better as King George I). James Edward, son of James II (and know to Protestant history as the Old Pretender) tried to raise up followers in 1715 but failed (hence the term ‘Jacobite’ often sneeringly used to refer to someone who supported the early Torys who were for the Stuart royalty) and HIS son you’ll know as Bonnie Prince Charlie who tried the same thing in 1745. . .

This was also when England and Scotland formally (and reluctantly on both sides, for some) came together with the Act of Union in 1707, partly to keep the Scots from choosing a different (Stuart) heir for the Scottish kingdom, even though the Scots were as ‘divided’ as the English with the lowland Scots being Protestant but the Highland Scots bravely Catholic.

So, 300 years on, and the tinder that sparked the whole thing was a totally fabricated “Popish Plot” invented by one Titus Oakes which was skillfully used to ‘fan the flames’ of antiCatholicism and deny the rightful king’s rule. . .

Makes you think, doesn’t it? :slight_smile:

Tantum Ergo - Did you read “Ungrateful Daughters - The Stuart Princesses Who Stole Their Father’s Crown” ? It goes into detail about all that you described. The sad thing is that if James II wasn’t so paranoid and stubborn, he still would have had support from his subjects - even his Protestant ones. I just kept asking, “Why, James?!?” Also, by leaving the country and fleeing to France, he let down many of his subjects. It was also through Charles II’s “pragmatism” that the daughters of James II and Anne Hyde, Mary and Anne, were raised as Protestants instead of as Catholics as Anne also converted to Catholicism.

Anne Stuart was a major you-know-what too. It was she who threw a tantrum and wanted to be Bath shortly before her half-brother, James the Pretender, was to be born as it was customary to have witnesses at royal births in order to be sure that the baby was legitimate. It is believed she did this purposely so to leave the rumor door open regarding the legitimacy of the new heir. Then she wrote horrible letters to her sister Mary regarding it. But even Protestant noble women who attended to Mary of Modena swore that James the Pretender was the true son and heir to the English crown as they witnessed the birth.

All very sad. I’m a huge Tudor and Stuart history buff and I’m always fantasizing the “what-ifs” should things had been different. What if Catherine and Henry VIII’s son survived? What if Mary Queen of Scots did not flee to England and did not get herself caught up in scandal? What if Mary Tudor not gone wild over executions of Protestants when at the time of being crowned, her subjects loved her. What if Elizabeth chose Arabella Stuart as the heir (who was rumored to be secretly Catholic) and not James VI Scotland (James I of England). What if Charles II, who was a much more pragmatic and well-liked king, been more brave and convert to Catholicism earlier in his reign and quelled the fears of staunch Protestants?

Hi Sarabande: Yes, I read it. Big Tudor/Stuart fan here too, and I have to agree.

You know, there’s a lot of historical fiction going around lately set in those times and it has been GALLING me that so much of it is anti-Catholic and/or pro-Protestant. The antiCatholic (Dan Brown and cohorts) is the worst, but even the stuff that is more ‘proProtestant’ (putting Elizabeth in the best possible light as anything from a gallant and brilliant sleuth to the patron saint of 21st century feminists, and playing both Mary Tudor and Mary Queen of Scots as respectively homicidal maniac and power-hungry nymphomaniac) fries me.

Methinks there is a nice waiting market for some good Catholic historical fiction in the period!


terrible. what’s with england?? makes my blood boil when i read about all the catholic martyrs in england. i wish the spanish armada would have won. nothing good came from the protestant reformation in england. now it’s a hedonistic cess pool of a country.

i get angry about the falkland war too.

Totally agree.

Even in historical dramas, especially the Elizabeth movie with Kate Blanchett (who I like as an actress), they portray Mary Tudor and her entire court as ugly (although when you look at the paintings of Mary she wasn’t that much of a looker), sweaty and backward. The Catholics in the court when Elizabeth took the throne in the movie were also portrayed as dark and evil, even to the point as showing a dark-cloaked Papal Assassin who was, none else, but a priest. Although, when my husband saw that part of the movie, he was saying under his breath, “Get her! Get her!” I know… not very nice.

I don’t even want to start with that new HBO series - “The Tudors”. Yuck!!!

There’s a great biography on St. Thomas Moore. I can’t think of the author. He’s my husband’s favorite saint to the point where we have the Holbein painting of him up on our wall. haha! And although it’s a play, I really loved “A Man For All Seasons” with Paul Scoffield.

I recall that there was some twittering in the mid-90s among the British at the prospect of Charles and Diana divorcing. It was thought that the divorce would be a bad thing, what with Charles being first in line for the throne and all that, and the monarch is head of the Church of England don’t you know, and… well, we can’t very well have a divorced man as head of the Church of England!

Oh, wait a minute… the Church of England is BUILT on divorce.


I read this and found it pretty sad. I get tired of reading about Kate Middleton too and how she comes from a staunch Catholic family. I guess in England a staunch Catholic family isn`t the same thing as where I am from.

NO ONE is worth it.

I doubt she was that devout.

And he is not actually even a prince; he has no royal “style” or title, as his parents rejected the offer from the Queen when he was born. He is actually considered, therefore, a “commoner” and works for a bank.

Anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable bigotry, especially in England. The Act of Settlement must go, along with the dominance of the Church of England in the political sphere; I don’t think it’s right that they are the only Church who have official representatives in the House of Lords.

Furthermore, those in line to the Throne should be able to make their own decisions with regard to their religious convictions. I can see no problem with whatever denomination they choose as long as they remain Christian. Great Britian should always have a Christian Monarch.

Religion is frowned upon in British society. Look at Tony Blair. He would not convert to Catholicism during his reign as Prime Minister for fear that it would affect his popularity with the public. On more than a few occasions his advisors told him to drop any references to God in his speeches. It’s ridiculous.

Also, the Church of England is a joke! This whole establishment is counterfeit Catholicism with one difference - it does not have the protection of the Holy Spirit. As a result, this Church changes it’s doctrines to suit the times. Hence women “priests” and openly Gay “bishops.”

However, moaning won’t help. Britain simply is not a religious society and it never will be. People aren’t concerned with matters of faith. The actions of Autumn Kelly show this perfectly.

“What if” scenarios are sometimes interesting. I read an assay a while back titled something like,“What if Mary, Queen of Scots had Married Don John of Austria?” The world would be a dramatically different place.

Does the Church of England have an identiy problem? It seems so to me. They want to be all things to all people. Is it Protestant or Anglican? I have friends who are Anglican and they get in a huff if anyone says they are Protestant. Someeven say: But, we are Catholic, too. Yet, the Act of Settlement clearly states Protestant Reformed and the Coronation Oath upholds the Protestant religion. Oh and yes, some Brits call themselves “Anglo-Catholic.” This is all very confusing. Maybe this will be Amber’s spin on her renouncing our ancestral faith. “I never left the Catholic Church, I am an Anglo-Catholic.”

No matter what, the girl has no faith at all. She is the typical celebrity obsessed female who is looking for an early retirement --riding in the royal carriage, giving the royal wave and maybe a wonderful country home from her grandmother-in-law. Oh and all those jewels, too

Does anyone remember the line Thomas More said in “A Man For All Seasons” to Richard Rich about gaining the world and losing the soul? I think it goes like this:

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? But for Wales, Richard?

I renounce Autumn Kelly.

Good riddance to bad rubbish as my granny used to say.

Autumn Kelly is a nominal, self-identified Catholic (or was). She has a lot in common with her future in-laws. Their church attendance means only one thing to them – a photo op. she should fit in nicely with the “family.”

Let’s see the shabby monetary deals she makes by trading in on her relationship with the royals. I have a feeling this couple is going to get it from the media for a long time to come. Sophie and Eddie had to give up their businesses and take on “royal duties” because of the media scrutiny.

What goes around, comes around, Amber.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit