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
 
  #881  
Old 10-24-2012, 05:39 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
Not any monarchist I know. That is the reason we have a Queen. Not for ribbon cuttings or Olympic galas but to honour her Oath. Disestablishment of the Church would be the end of the monarchy in Britain
I can't see why disestablishing the Cof E would have any major impact on the monarchy. If anything it would remove the monarch and the government from any involvement with the controversies the CofE gets itself involved in (same sex marriage, female priests and bishops, relations with the Vatican, appointment of Bishops and Archbishops). It would also be an acceptance of the diminishing role the church plays in the lives of the citizens of England (and please note the CofE only has official status in one part of the UK). Disestablishing the church does not mean the monarch could not continue to be a member of it or even Supreme Governor should the synod wish to continue the link.
The Lutheran Church was disestablished in Norway, a much less culturally diverse nation, last year with no noticable shaking of King Harolds throne.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 10-24-2012, 06:26 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
It will alienate many monarchists, myself included and I can't see it attracting any new people to the royalist fold.

At least for now, the 'reform' of the House of Lords is on hold and consensus seems to be that a referendum is required to eject the Lords Spiritual from the House of Lords
( Lords Spiritual consist of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and 24 Bishops, by rotation but always including the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester)

For now at least we have a reprieve and maybe the monarchy can survive this.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 10-24-2012, 06:35 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
I still don't believe that changes to the Church will have any great impact on the monarchy, except perhaps to make them more representative. I have never believed that the CofE or any faith community should have any official role, no matter how small, in the government of the nation. Its so 16th century and the 21st century UK is a pretty secular state. The Church of England pews are not exactly overflowing on Sunday mornings. A Catholic is more likely to show up in church than an Anglican. About half of the British people consider themselves non-religious or claim no church affiliation and about 1/3rd don't believe in God at all.

Religion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 10-24-2012, 08:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
A lot of what you say is true but if gets to the point of disestablishing the Church and passing all sorts of laws that compromise the Church's position, and force her Bishops to perform acts against their good conscience then the monarchy should be abolished altogether.
If HM (or Charles) can't live up to and honour her Oath, no point having a Sovereign IMO and I'm a monarchist to my fingertips.
George III said it best in his words to the government. See my comment above.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 10-24-2012, 08:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Then I would think the best hope for survival is to be disestablished and it then it can hold whatever views it wants, much like any other faith community. If however it wants to continue to be the state religion it should abide by the laws of a changing and more secular country and accept the equality of all people.

I also think it would be better for the monarchy not to be linked to what many consider to be an increasing controversial and divided church. The monarchy after all is supposed to represent all the British people not just dwindling members of one church.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 10-24-2012, 09:03 PM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,222
While our royal family also still are very much linked to Sweden's Lutheran Church (little princess Estelle has been described as "the only baby in Sweden without freedom of religion"), and I can see old how traditions like this still can be strong, I don't see what's to be so upset about. It's a much more secular world today than it was before, and even if you don't like it, I guess you just have to accept it.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 10-24-2012, 09:15 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furienna View Post
While our royal family also still are very much linked to Sweden's Lutheran Church (little princess Estelle has been described as "the only baby in Sweden without freedom of religion"), and I can see old how traditions like this still can be strong, I don't see what's to be so upset about. It's a much more secular world today than it was before, and even if you don't like it, I guess you just have to accept it.
I am not a religious zealot by any means and I know the world is increasing secular but for me, why take an oath and then not honour it?
Maybe the time for monarchy in Britain has passed if this is the state of affairs. Politicians break promises and oaths but I hope my Sovereign would be above that. JMO of course and I respect all views.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 10-24-2012, 09:29 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
I am still unclear why you feel HM has not honored her oath regarding the church as it is, but going forward should the elected government of the UK change the role of the established church I don't see how HM as a constitutional monarch could be held at fault. She is after all in the rather unenviable position of having to sign her own death warrant should she be so advised by her PM.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 10-24-2012, 09:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
I am still unclear why you feel HM has not honored her oath regarding the church as it is, but going forward should the elected government of the UK change the role of the established church I don't see how HM as a constitutional monarch could be held at fault. She is after all in the rather unenviable position of having to sign her own death warrant should she be so advised by her PM.
Religious considerations aside, signing the Treaty of Lisbon unequivocally broke her Coronation Oath

And

As King George III said to Parliament- was this not the express reason my family was put on the Throne in the first place, to uphold the Settlement of the Church of England and defend the Protestant Reformed Faith.

The Act of Settlement was all about having the Heir of body of the Electress Sophia of Hanover as Sovereign and for said Sovereign to swear an Oath at coronation and to honour that Oath.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 10-24-2012, 09:59 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Remember, HM is Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She is Defender of the Faith

If not for that Grace and Faith there is no office to hold.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
That may be the official title but the reality is that she is Queen of the UK by the grace of Parliament and of the people. Should Parliament and the people decide otherwise I would not expect God to intervene.
She also swore an oath to govern by the laws of the UK, the treaty of Lisbon became part of those laws.
As far as I can tell she is still a Protestant, even Supreme Governor of the Church of England so nothing has changed there as far as the oath to be Protestant goes. She like every other congregant can defend the Protestant faith to her hearts content. Even the proposed changes to the succession laws would still require the monarch to be CofE. Even removal of the Bishops from the House of Lords would not change that. God, and Gods representatives on earth, should after all be more concerned with more spiritual than political issues and the House of Lords is now entirely political.
The only way QEII could bring about the end of the monarchy would be if she suddenly decided to act in a manner that was contrary to the wishes of Parliament, the laws of the UK and the people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 10-24-2012, 10:38 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 1,181
Well the signing away of the countrie's sovereignty to the Europeans is not "governing by the laws and customs of this land" but governing by the laws and customs of the EU.

You're probably right, not many people care about oaths and promises in this day and age and the breaking of her Oath won't bring down the monarchy but IMO this is bigger than 'constitutional monarchy' and the Queen being a rubber stamp.
IMO this goes to the very concept and reason we put the Heir of Body of the Electress Sophia of Hanover on the throne in the first place and the reason we have The Act of Settlement 1701.

BTW, maybe this whole mess with trying to change The Act of Settlement 1701 IS God's way of intervening (thought I missed that dig, didn't cha )
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 10-25-2012, 12:40 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
Well the signing away of the countrie's sovereignty to the Europeans is not "governing by the laws and customs of this land" but governing by the laws and customs of the EU.
But those laws became part of the laws and customs of the UK, until such time as Parliament determines otherwise. I don't think an oath taken in 1953 meant that changes in laws and customs would not happen over the years. In 1953 it was the custom that divorced persons could not enter the Royal Enclosure or be received at court, and now divorced people are part of the court doing the receiving. Now the Cof E will bless the re-marriage of divorced people which not so many years ago was unthinkable. We have even appointed a British Roman Catholic to be Ambassador to the Vatican which seems like a no brainer but it was the custom that the British Ambassador was always CofE. Gee we even had a woman Prime Minister which was certainly not the custom in 1953. Laws and customs change with time but it doesn't means oaths have been broken. Monarchy survives because it is able to adapt to the times, if not it would have gone the way of the French and other continental monarchies.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 10-25-2012, 03:39 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
1. No law is a law in the UK until it has received the Royal Assent.
2. She had to sign the Lisbon Treaty into law.
3. Her Coronation Oath required her to protect the sovreignty of the UK.
4. She failed to protect that sovreignty when she signed the laws handing that sovreignty over to the EU.
5. She broke her coronation oath.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 10-25-2012, 04:44 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 401
Sorry - Point 4. is just NOT true - UK is STILL a sovereign country; in the EU everything has to be agreed on by all parts - so if the UK is against s.th.
they can stop the process OR decide, like they did with Schengen and EURO to NOT beeing part of it!!!

So you see your Point 5 is absolute hogwash
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 10-25-2012, 07:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Actually that isn't the case at all as both those decisions pre-date Lisbon. Since Lisbon Britain is subject to EU laws first and foremost and the Queen signed that away.

She broke her oath.

The Lisbon Treaty was signed in 2007 and only came into force in 2009 well after the Shengen Treaty was agreed and more than 5 years after the Euro was introduced - so those weren't covered by the Lisbon Treaty as it only affects things since 2009.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 10-25-2012, 08:15 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl
Then why swear an oath if your're not going to put yourself in the firing line to honour it
Because she can't see the future? She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. Poor woman.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 11-12-2012, 01:56 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
As present, the position of Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland is inheritable by males before females, right?


I know this may be a silly question but here it goes:

King George VI had two daughters. The current reigning monarch, Elizabeth II and the late Princess Margaret. How would the succession have played out if the Queen Mother had pre-deceased George VI & he later re-married and had a son with his new queen?

Would Elizabeth still have been 1st in line of succession before her half brother seeing as she was the King's legitimate daughter from his first marriage that produced no sons?

Or, would his son from his second marriage take precedence above her in the line of succession?

I'm under the assumption that Elizabeth would've still become Sovereign as she had no brothers from her father's first marriage, but acquired a brother due to his remarriage. I was thinking back to King William III whose heir apparent was Princess Anne of Denmark (later Queen Anne), his sister in law. If he had remarried, his offspring would've been further down the line of succession after Princess Anne & her descendents.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 11-12-2012, 03:54 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,244
The son would have been the heir apparent. The other parent isn't really relevant. Being the king's legitimate son is all that would have mattered.

The situation with Anne was a special case. The law placed her by name ahead of William III's hypothetical children with another wife. At the time, the line of succession was specified in an Act of Parliament (the Bill of Rights) as:
  • The heirs of William and Mary together, then
  • Anne and her heirs, then
  • The heirs of William and another woman.

Since 1701, there's only been one set of heirs (Sophia of Hanover and her descendants).
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 11-12-2012, 03:59 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRHThePrince View Post
A
I'm under the assumption that Elizabeth would've still become Sovereign as she had no brothers from her father's first marriage, but acquired a brother due to his remarriage. I was thinking back to King William III whose heir apparent was Princess Anne of Denmark (later Queen Anne), his sister in law. If he had remarried, his offspring would've been further down the line of succession after Princess Anne & her descendents.
No, her halfbrother would have become the heir of his father. It doesn't matter from which marriage a son is, important is that the marriage was valid. The case of king William was different as he became king due to the fact that he was married to queen Mary and was the next in (protestant) line after Mary and Anne, as he was their cousin, his mother was the sister of James II and Charles II (Mary, Princess Royal) and had married to the Netherlands, thus he was William of Orange. But he was next after Anne, so while his children with Mary would have taken precedence over Anne's, his own children would have been after Anne's children.
__________________

__________________
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





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:44 PM.

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]