The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #741  
Old 04-25-2011, 06:06 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.
Strange situation,they talk a lot about democracy and innovations,equal primogeniture etc.,but avoid Catholic reformation like something to be evil,it's outrageous!
If it's so,then let's keep traditional male primogeniture as well in order not to harm anybody's traditional views and theories about royals in Britain
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #742  
Old 04-25-2011, 08:13 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Remember that that heir is not only heir to throne but also to the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England and thus their spouse being a Roman Catholic and insisting on the children being raised as Roman Catholics would then see the Supreme Governor of the Church of England owing allegiance to the Pope.
But why is Catholicism the only religion, that's targeted like this? Just like Esmeralda said, a child of a Jewish mother is often automatically seen as a Jew. But there aren't any laws against an heir to the thrown to marry a Jew. The answer to this is: There was a power struggle three hundred years ago, when this was a convenient way to keep Catholic relatives of queen Mary from claiming the English thrown, and for some reason, it hasn't been changed since. If the law had just said "the heir of the thrown can only marry a member of the Church of England", it would have been archaic enough, but still a little bit understandable. However, to still specifically target Catholics in the 21rst century, because they won't change a law from the 17th century, is just weird.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #743  
Old 04-25-2011, 08:24 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.
I understand your point of view entirely, but I think that so far as the present Queen is concerned, she views her position as both a monarch and also as head of the Church of England as indivisible [and also that her position as a monarch is in the nature of an appointment by God]

The problem about attempts to 'democratise' [horrid word] the British Royal Family is that it in effect 'opens a can of worms'. Whilst in the 21st Century is seems unsympathetic and out of line to forbid a Catholic to remain in the line of succession, and it seems out of step to insist on primogeniture, the next logical step is surely to question whether in the 21st Century it is acceptable to have a monarchy at all; the current thinking is that we live in an meritocracy and your birth should not determine your future........... in other words, by trying to make a more 'democratic monarchy' it would appear more logical to abolish it all together...so perhaps better to leave well alone....?

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #744  
Old 04-25-2011, 08:39 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
In my opinion, The Sovereign should represent all faiths as a monarch of a diverse society and the Church should be destablished from the Crown altogether, with the Archbishop of Canterbury being Supreme Governor of the Anglican faith.

There is no reason today for a British monarch to be the Head of the Chruch of England. It was done thousands of years ago to satisfy one monarch's desire to remarry and makes no sense today.
It was slightly less than 500 years ago, and then many bitter events happened afterwards, with Catholicism at the center of some violent controversy for more than 50 years. Things tend to change slowly in monarchic traditions.

I believe that to remove that component from the monarchy would denature it tremendously, as Catholic monarchs often have the blessing of the pope and have served as de facto heads of their national churches (appointing all bishops and sometimes cardinals, etc.)

The Church of England is all a slow-changing entity that made its own choices over the years - but it's been less than 500 years that it has existed - I think it has its 500th anniversary in 2033 or thereabouts. Unlikely they'll want to change anything before then.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #745  
Old 04-25-2011, 09:26 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,132
The reason why only Roman Catholics are banned is that in 1701 it wasn't seen as plausible that a Christian would marry a Jew or a Muslim or someone from another religion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #746  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:02 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
I understand your point of view entirely, but I think that so far as the present Queen is concerned, she views her position as both a monarch and also as head of the Church of England as indivisible [and also that her position as a monarch is in the nature of an appointment by God]

The problem about attempts to 'democratise' [horrid word] the British Royal Family is that it in effect 'opens a can of worms'. Whilst in the 21st Century is seems unsympathetic and out of line to forbid a Catholic to remain in the line of succession, and it seems out of step to insist on primogeniture, the next logical step is surely to question whether in the 21st Century it is acceptable to have a monarchy at all; the current thinking is that we live in an meritocracy and your birth should not determine your future........... in other words, by trying to make a more 'democratic monarchy' it would appear more logical to abolish it all together...so perhaps better to leave well alone....?

Alex
I see what you mean, but I think this is a thing, that should be changed. Or really, it should already have been changed a long time ago.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #747  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:04 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,182
But still, specifically discriminating Catholics today because of events hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The reason why only Roman Catholics are banned is that in 1701 it wasn't seen as plausible that a Christian would marry a Jew or a Muslim or someone from another religion.
I understand that. But this isn't 1701, but 2011. It's just as possible, that an heir falls in love with a Jew or a Muslim.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #748  
Old 04-26-2011, 05:16 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
Anti Catholicism laws

Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But still, specifically discriminating Catholics today because of events hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.

I understand that. But this isn't 1701, but 2011. It's just as possible, that an heir falls in love with a Jew or a Muslim.
I believe that there was an act of parliament in the early 19th century that blanket removed any previous laws covering commoners in the UK that discriminated against Catholicism. The UK is probably the only country in the world that has not updated it's Act of Succession.

The standard argument is that they will update the law of succession if events warrant the effort. Cases like if William's first born is a girl, if Harry falls in love with a Catholic, if William and Catherine prove infertile and decide to adopt. It's perceived as not worth the trouble as long as it is abstract.

My own personal feeling is parliament doesn't want to open a larger can of worms. The complex relationship between public property and property of the Anglican church; the bishops who are entitled to seats in the House of Lords; the gender biased laws governing peerages. The list goes on and on. Although updating the law of succession seems trivial, then people will want updates in a government that is built largely on medieval institutions.

An update to the law of succession will be open season for republicans.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #749  
Old 04-26-2011, 07:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
But still, specifically discriminating Catholics today because of events hundreds of years ago is ridiculous.

I understand that. But this isn't 1701, but 2011. It's just as possible, that an heir falls in love with a Jew or a Muslim.

It may be descriminatory but really it only impacts on a very very very small fraction of a percent of the population....those in line of succession to the throne and even then probably really only of you are in the top 5 to 10 in line. If Autumn had not become an Anglican but had remained RC would Peter Phillips life be any different? Doubt it. Would the monarchy have been hurt? No. Would people in the UK care if Peter had been dropped from the line of succession? No, most probably don't know who he is.

I seem to recall that Pope Paul VI refused to allow Prince Michael of Kent to marry in a RC Church because he could not sign a document promising to raise his children as Roman Catholics. Seems like "descrimination" can be found in more places that just the Act of Settlement.

Basically it comes down to choices made by the individuals involved. They know the rules of the game and decide to play by those rules or not, but it doesnt impact on the lives of the general population. Peter & Autumn decided to play by the rules, Michael & MC decided not to.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #750  
Old 04-27-2011, 03:50 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,033
The author of that article considers that any changements to the actual monarchy laws,either breaking the Catholic law or changement to equal primogeniture will gradually weaken the monarchy
Politicians, not republicans, are*a threat to the monarchy - Telegraph
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #751  
Old 04-27-2011, 04:55 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The reason why only Roman Catholics are banned is that in 1701 it wasn't seen as plausible that a Christian would marry a Jew or a Muslim or someone from another religion.
Interesting that the wording is not "Roman Catholic" but Papist - which is a political statement in itself. Popes and their courtiers at that time were very political people which actively supported the disposed Stuarts, especially the Old Pretender against his sister and her husband who had taken the throne. The deposed Prince of Wales, only son of king James II/VII. and italian princess Mary of Modena, even died in Rome, his second son became a catholic cardinal.

So the rift within the Stuart family came from religious as well as political reasons - no wonder as it was a result of the Civil which sent James II. to exile in France where he became a believer in the Catholic church and changed his faith subsequently. His daughter on the other hand were raised as protestants on orders of his brother Charles II. (who only converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, having reigned as a protestant). So when James finally fathered a son with his Catholic wife, the political powers in England feared a "catholic dynasty" and invited William of Orange, son of Mary Stuart, princess Royal as eldest daughter of king Charles I. and husband of Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of king James II.
to invade Great Britain and take the throne together with his wife.

Problem was that neither of James II.'s daughters managed to have children surviving infancy, so the British politicians who had already fought hard against the Catholic opposition in the country, had to search for a non-catholic heir. As these were further down the line than Catholic ones (even after the male-line of James II. became extinct), they needed a law to legalize their protestant choice.

And to make sure that the Catholic influence did not come back through the king's bedroom, they forbid marrriages of future monarchs with catholic wifes.

So back in 1701 this law made sense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #752  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:06 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Interesting that the wording is not "Roman Catholic" but Papist - which is a political statement in itself. Popes and their courtiers at that time were very political people which actively supported the disposed Stuarts, especially the Old Pretender against his sister and her husband who had taken the throne. The deposed Prince of Wales, only son of king James II/VII. and italian princess Mary of Modena, even died in Rome, his second son became a catholic cardinal.

So the rift within the Stuart family came from religious as well as political reasons - no wonder as it was a result of the Civil which sent James II. to exile in France where he became a believer in the Catholic church and changed his faith subsequently. His daughter on the other hand were raised as protestants on orders of his brother Charles II. (who only converted to Catholicism on his deathbed, having reigned as a protestant). So when James finally fathered a son with his Catholic wife, the political powers in England feared a "catholic dynasty" and invited William of Orange, son of Mary Stuart, princess Royal as eldest daughter of king Charles I. and husband of Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of king James II.
to invade Great Britain and take the throne together with his wife.

Problem was that neither of James II.'s daughters managed to have children surviving infancy, so the British politicians who had already fought hard against the Catholic opposition in the country, had to search for a non-catholic heir. As these were further down the line than Catholic ones (even after the male-line of James II. became extinct), they needed a law to legalize their protestant choice.

And to make sure that the Catholic influence did not come back through the king's bedroom, they forbid marrriages of future monarchs with catholic wifes.

So back in 1701 this law made sense.

I am aware of all of this.

I was explaining why they only banned Papists and not other religions. Other protestants were fine - and in fact many Lutherans became the wives/husbands of the future monarchs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #753  
Old 04-27-2011, 10:53 AM
EmpressRouge's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 1,291
British Royal Family - Bing Visual Search
Guess the royal wedding has increased the interest in the British Line of Succession so Bing put together this visual search result. Two things that are wrong (there's always a mistake in these things) with the list:
1) They forgot to add baby Savannah Phillips, who has replaced Aunt Zara as number 12
2) The Duke of Edinburgh IS in the line of succession although wayyyyyyy down the list.
__________________
Real princesses always wear sleeves so why do we all go for strapless?
Reply With Quote
  #754  
Old 04-27-2011, 11:28 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,734
Church affiliation is still very important, not only amongst royals, but in regular families as well. I would like to know the inside story of Kate's confirmation into the CofE at such a late age (week before last or last week). Anyone know if she was just unchurched or of another religion?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #755  
Old 04-27-2011, 01:38 PM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta View Post
Church affiliation is still very important, not only amongst royals, but in regular families as well. I would like to know the inside story of Kate's confirmation into the CofE at such a late age (week before last or last week). Anyone know if she was just unchurched or of another religion?
As I 've read on Wiki and heard is that Kate's parents were married in an Anglican Church,so the most likely they are Anglicans,though not very active in practicing
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #756  
Old 04-27-2011, 02:12 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
Strange situation,they talk a lot about democracy and innovations,equal primogeniture etc.,but avoid Catholic reformation like something to be evil,it's outrageous!
If it's so,then let's keep traditional male primogeniture as well in order not to harm anybody's traditional views and theories about royals in Britain
I like it how you put it, Lenora! I totally agree with you, have nothing more to add.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #757  
Old 04-27-2011, 04:56 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacomartin View Post
I believe that there was an act of parliament in the early 19th century that blanket removed any previous laws covering commoners in the UK that discriminated against Catholicism. The UK is probably the only country in the world that has not updated it's Act of Succession.

The standard argument is that they will update the law of succession if events warrant the effort. Cases like if William's first born is a girl, if Harry falls in love with a Catholic, if William and Catherine prove infertile and decide to adopt. It's perceived as not worth the trouble as long as it is abstract.

My own personal feeling is parliament doesn't want to open a larger can of worms. The complex relationship between public property and property of the Anglican church; the bishops who are entitled to seats in the House of Lords; the gender biased laws governing peerages. The list goes on and on. Although updating the law of succession seems trivial, then people will want updates in a government that is built largely on medieval institutions.

An update to the law of succession will be open season for republicans.
But I think this is a change, that already should have done a long time ago, like when the other discriminations against the Catholics were removed. I can somewhat understand, that people are afraid of "opening a can of worms". And I have no problem with keeping other parts of the succession law, that might seem archaic to many people today, like the male primogeniture. If the law had simply said something like "an heir to the thrown and his/her spouse must belong to the Church of England", I would have less problems with it. But to still specifically discriminate Catholics in the year 2011, because of a law, that was made in the 17th century because of a power struggle back then, is just stupid.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #758  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:02 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,097
It does sound ridiculous but honestly, you would be amazed on how many laws are on the books that were written over a hundred of years ago. No one has taken the time to do away with them so they remain, dormant. And a majority of them are silly, offensive or make you think...why was that law created?

Right now, the British Government has a lot of things on its plate (like try to improve the economy, immigration, defense, etc.) so this law is not a priority.

Now saw that Kate was Cathoic and William wanted to marry her...one of three things would have happened: 1) she would have done an Autumn and became Anglican 2) William would have renounced his place in succession to marry her or 3) the law would have been changed.

Things tend to change when there is a reason to do so.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #759  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:06 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
It may be descriminatory but really it only impacts on a very very very small fraction of a percent of the population....those in line of succession to the throne and even then probably really only of you are in the top 5 to 10 in line. If Autumn had not become an Anglican but had remained RC would Peter Phillips life be any different? Doubt it. Would the monarchy have been hurt? No. Would people in the UK care if Peter had been dropped from the line of succession? No, most probably don't know who he is.

I seem to recall that Pope Paul VI refused to allow Prince Michael of Kent to marry in a RC Church because he could not sign a document promising to raise his children as Roman Catholics. Seems like "descrimination" can be found in more places that just the Act of Settlement.

Basically it comes down to choices made by the individuals involved. They know the rules of the game and decide to play by those rules or not, but it doesnt impact on the lives of the general population. Peter & Autumn decided to play by the rules, Michael & MC decided not to.
I believe an article stated, that there are some five million Catholics in the UK. That's just about as many people as the total population of Finland, Norway or Denmark, and even within the UK, it's a twelth of the population. They probably make up a bigger part of the total population than what Jews or Muslims do, and they're not discriminated by the law.

And just because there are discriminations in other places as well, two wrongs don't make one right.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #760  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:08 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,097
Not to minimize the discrimination but its not like they have to live somewhere different, can't hold different jobs, etc.

They just can't be King or Queen or marry into the royal family and keep their line of succession. I agree its not ideal but a great majority of Catholics are not affected by this. Only the immeadiate Kent family.

But again, its a bad law...I do think it will be changed. When is the question.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, catholicism, line of succession, succession


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander olympic games picture thread pom pregnancy prince albert prince albert ii prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess charlene daytime fashion princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]