The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 09-10-2007, 02:31 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
The Catholic ban makes sense for as long as the monarch remains the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, when that's no longer the case then the Act of Settlement can be revised.
quite right. since the Catholic Church is well known for not changing it's mind on issues(i.e. in this case, that the non catholic should convert) we will(and i feel quite confident in saying) NEVER see the ban lifted. most people feel it is discriminatory and it is if you look at it in the "human rights" sense but it makes complete sense if you look at it from the viewpoint of the 2 churches. since the monarch is the head of the CoE why would you want them to convert to catholicism (if the couple were devout enough to follow that rule) and if the monarch is the head of a church then they should be devout. HM takes her role as the head of the CoE very seriously and her faith has probably sustained her throughout many trying times. for the record, i'm Roman Catholic but don't see the ban as discrimanatory at all.
__________________

__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-10-2007, 03:21 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
one big issue with changing the law is that in order for a catholic to marry a non catholic (if they were going to do things by the book so to speak) would need to get a dispensation from the church. The following are 2 of the 3 requirements (the first one stating simply that the catholic be allowed to practice their religion) by the Roman Catholic church to grant a dispensation and is taken from the website Fisheaters.com:

that all the offspring are to be brought up Catholic; and
that the Catholic party promise to do all that is possible to convert the non-Catholic.

these 2 alone would cause huge problems because 1) the heir to the throne would have to be raised Catholic and 2) the current monarch would be under pressure to convert to Catholicism.

Perhaps these are the reasons that the law has never, and likely will never, be changed.

This doesn't apply just to Catholics, though. I think many religions tend to want spouses and children to convert. As long as we have an established church, it makes sense for the monarch to have to be a member, which is required at the moment. But I think that either the spouse should also have to be a member of the established church (as I think is the case in other monarchies with an established or official church) or there shouldn't be any prohibition. To me, it makes no sense that you can have a Satanist or Rastafarian or Eastern Orthodox spouse but not a Catholic one.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-10-2007, 03:27 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
The thing is that no other religion is as forceful in asking the Catholic partner to convert as Catholicism is. The Eastern Orthodox church will marry a non-Orthodox to an Orthodox faithful if the non-Orthodox has been baptised. If not, they won't carry out the marriage and though they accept divorce they won't perform more than 3 marriages. You also get into the mess of Autocephalous churches, that is, one autocephalous church might not recognise another and so if someone has been baptised and catechised by the Finnish Autocephalous Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church might not recognise their baptism and therefore wouldn't conduct a marriage service. However, in all the rules and regulations on Orthodox mixed marriage, it at no point requires the Catholic spouse to "recruit" the non-Catholic spouse. And similarly, no other denomination has that requirement which means that it's impossible to have a mixed Catholic/Anglican marriage where the monarch is concerned.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-10-2007, 03:28 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by marian View Post
I belive that Camila "was" catholic because she was married with Andrew Parker Bowles as catholics. But Charles, as heir the british throne, should abdicated if he wanted married with her. So, I think that this is a great secret of State: the goverment and the royalty have this as a secret, a very important secret.
My goodness. Talk about wishful thinking. I think we all know how much you dislike Camilla and you think Charles shouldn't become King - basically on account of your loyalty to Diana - but this is really going a bit far, isn't it? You know she's Catholic because there's no evidence that she's Catholic and therefore it means she must be?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-10-2007, 04:00 PM
cde cde is offline
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Marina del rey, United States
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by marian View Post
I belive that Camila "was" catholic because she was married with Andrew Parker Bowles as catholics. But Charles, as heir the british throne, should abdicated if he wanted married with her. So, I think that this is a great secret of State: the goverment and the royalty have this as a secret, a very important secret.
The only reason Camilla has any Catholicism surrounding her is due to her Mother in Law-Ann de Trafford and to a lesser extent Andrew. Ann was a serious Catholic. If they were married in a Catholic service it was due to Ann forcing the issue. (Although what type of service has never been established.) The children were also raised Catholic due to Ann. Camilla never converted to Catholicism. After Ann died, Camilla brought them the children up in her own religion CoE. Hardly the actions of a convert.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-10-2007, 05:04 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Camilla is not a secret Catholic. She is CoE. Which, by the way, is Catholic to some extent, just not Roman Catholic. The Liturgy is the same, obstensively. The reason people are speaking out against the Act, is that in this day and age, to have this, even tiny form of discrimination, looks at best silly, at worst ugly. Basically, you can marry a Druid, but not a Catholic. Just in case anyone flips, I have nothing against Druids.

I never said that Catholic was a secret Catholic.

I was responding to an earlier post that said that she was.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-10-2007, 05:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well, the Church of England isn't Catholic in any sense because the fundamental belief of Catholicism is transubstantiation which isn't accepted as a doctrine of the Anglican church - if it was, the Church of England wouldn't exist. Though the liturgy is similar, there are fundamental differences that make the two Churches world apart but the main one is the Eucharist. The Catholic ban makes sense for as long as the monarch remains the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, when that's no longer the case then the Act of Settlement can be revised.
Actually the Church of England is Catholic in the sense that 'Catholic' is a fundamental term in the Church of England Apostolic creed which summarises the beliefs of the church.

The words of the creed are 'I believe in a Catholic and Apostolic church'. I say this every Sunday at my local Church of England church and asked my minister the meaning in the lead up to my confirmation as a member of the Church of England. His response was very clear - the Church of England church is Catholic but not Roman Catholic - we don't acknowledge the Pope as Head of the Church but do acknowledge much of the same ideas.

Transubstantiation is the reason why the two churches can't come together but there are regular talks at very high levels (maybe not directly involving the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury but certainly some of their staff - according to my minister and a very good friend of mine who is a bishop in the Church of England and has been to a couple of these meetings) about reuniting the two churches if an agreement can be made on transubstantiation. It is the only sticking point because both churches do have a 'Catholic and Apostolic' belief and structure.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-10-2007, 06:03 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well yes but he was using Catholic as pertaining to universal rather than Catholic as Catholic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-10-2007, 06:22 PM
Aurora810's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 1,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
We have no idea of the feeling within the Royal Family.
The Act of Settlement is a law passed by the Parliament and can only be changed by the Parliament. The Act can't be repealed in its entirety without being replaced by something else as it provides the legal basis for succession to the throne as determined by the Parliament.
I see your point! I have a feeling that Charles at least doesn't feel that way. He talks about on his web site of understanding different faiths. But I get your point we really don't know how they each personally feel. It's just the law they have to abide by.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-10-2007, 06:27 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: olney, United States
Posts: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by izumi View Post
Although I have no intention to deny their tradition, I cannot understand the reason the British Royal Family reject only Catholics. The matter would be logical and understandable to me if they limited successors and their wives only to members of the Church of England because it is their state church and the king or queen is its head. But the reality is that their law seems to mind only Catholics.

Prince Charles would be king if Princess Camilla were a Lutheran, Orthodox, Buddhist, Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Raelian or anything else, wouldn't he? However, he would not be allowed to be king if his wife were a Catholic. Why do they disfavor Catholics so much though they had Catholic kings and queens in the past? It looks unreasonable to me.

It is a long story but started when the Pope refused to annul Henry VIII marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Henry made himself the head of the church of England and since then there has been an unfavorable law against Catholics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 09-10-2007, 06:34 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
This doesn't apply just to Catholics, though. I think many religions tend to want spouses and children to convert. As long as we have an established church, it makes sense for the monarch to have to be a member, which is required at the moment. But I think that either the spouse should also have to be a member of the established church (as I think is the case in other monarchies with an established or official church) or there shouldn't be any prohibition. To me, it makes no sense that you can have a Satanist or Rastafarian or Eastern Orthodox spouse but not a Catholic one.
i think the whole things just goes back to Henry VIII. we will never see this law change. it did just occur to me though that in a situation such as charles and camilla's where there's no (and will be any) children resulting from it, if camilla were Roman Catholic it wouldn't pose the problem that the two churches probably see would result in the event that there were children.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 09-10-2007, 06:38 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: olney, United States
Posts: 603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
quite right. since the Catholic Church is well known for not changing it's mind on issues(i.e. in this case, that the non catholic should convert) we will(and i feel quite confident in saying) NEVER see the ban lifted. most people feel it is discriminatory and it is if you look at it in the "human rights" sense but it makes complete sense if you look at it from the viewpoint of the 2 churches. since the monarch is the head of the CoE why would you want them to convert to catholicism (if the couple were devout enough to follow that rule) and if the monarch is the head of a church then they should be devout. HM takes her role as the head of the CoE very seriously and her faith has probably sustained her throughout many trying times. for the record, i'm Roman Catholic but don't see the ban as discrimanatory at all.
It is discriminatory since other religions (Muslim, Judaism, Hinduisim, Buddhsim, etc) ar not banned; just Catholics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 09-10-2007, 07:59 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 2,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
it did just occur to me though that in a situation such as charles and camilla's where there's no (and will be any) children resulting from it, if camilla were Roman Catholic it wouldn't pose the problem that the two churches probably see would result in the event that there were children.
Yes, but the legislation as it is provides that if Charles married "a papist" he would be treated as if he were "naturally dead" for the purposes of the succession, which is rather final and gives nobody any discretion in the matter.

I think it's high time this anachronistic and divisive piece of legislation was repealed and replaced.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 09-11-2007, 07:58 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuchu View Post
It is discriminatory since other religions (Muslim, Judaism, Hinduisim, Buddhsim, etc) ar not banned; just Catholics.
as i said earlier, i don't feel it's discriminatory. it makes perfect sense. you're perfectly entitled to feel that way though.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 09-11-2007, 07:59 AM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Yes, but the legislation as it is provides that if Charles married "a papist" he would be treated as if he were "naturally dead" for the purposes of the succession, which is rather final and gives nobody any discretion in the matter.

I think it's high time this anachronistic and divisive piece of legislation was repealed and replaced.
if the law were changed and the heir married a roman catholic, then the children would be raised as RC and then who would be the head of the CoE?
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 09-11-2007, 02:50 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
if the law were changed and the heir married a roman catholic, then the children would be raised as RC and then who would be the head of the CoE?
So long as they promise to uphold the established church, etc., would it matter? Right now, a person with any other faith can do this. Would it really be harder for a Roman Catholic to be the ceremonial head of the church than say, a Muslim or a Jain? The monarch doesn't take an active role in church politics, so I don't see how it matters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 09-11-2007, 03:34 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
if the law were changed and the heir married a roman catholic, then the children would be raised as RC and then who would be the head of the CoE?
The children wouldn't necessarily be raised Catholic; Prince Michael of Kent's children weren't, despite having a Catholic mother.

If the law remained the same that the monarch had to be a communicant of the CofE, then Catholic children of the monarch would be excluded from the line of succession. In that case, there are other people further down the line of succession who are CofE. If William married a Catholic and his children were received into the Catholic Church (or any other church or mosque or whatever), then the succession would move to Harry and his children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 09-12-2007, 07:20 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
true but wouldn't that cause some sort of crisis, not unlike the abdication crisis?
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 09-12-2007, 07:51 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
It probably wouldn't because it'd be part of the system. But I'm sure it'd give rise to a major debate about the position of the Established Church and its effect on the monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 09-12-2007, 08:11 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Yes, indeed it goes back to Henry 8th and his divorce to Catherine of Aragon which the Pope wouldn't recognize. Don't forget Catherine's parents were Ferdinand and Isabella, heavy hitters in the Catholic realm for the Pope. So that didn't sit well at all! Henry made himself head of the church and confiscated all the churchs lands for his own. He taxed them and took the wealth to fill his coffers because he was running into some expense entertaining lavishly at court. When Mary Tudor came to power, she turned the apple cart upside down and went back to Catholicism executing all those who didn't agree to re-convert. It wasn't for naught she was called "Bloody Mary". (And it's an awfully nice drink if made with horseradish and worchestershire) Elizabeth 1 went back to CoE. The people must have been mixed up and upset.
Well, long story short, marrying a Catholic DOES NOT make you Catholic. You have to be baptized and take communion, confession, etc. Mr. Russo's a Catholic and I'm a Jack Mormon. Go figure!
There is no way that the Royal Family wants to open that can of worms. If they reverse the law, what is to say that the current sitting Pope won't request all his lands and churches back that Henry took?? It could happen! Blacks are asking for reparations in America because their ancestors were brought here against their will.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
act of settlement, camilla, catholicism, duchess of cornwall, line of 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Camilla And The Public Duchess The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 455 Yesterday 09:15 PM
Catholic Royals BeatrixFan Royalty Past, Present, and Future 193 02-26-2014 05:41 PM
Would the Lux. Princes be allowed to marry a Non-Catholic? bad_barbarella Prince Felix, Princess Claire, Princess Alexandra, Prince Sebastien & Prince Louis with Family 117 10-24-2009 08:01 AM
What If William falls in love with a Catholic girl... Janet Prince Harry and Prince William 167 02-21-2008 02:51 AM
Will Camilla ever become Queen? polop The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 59 12-02-2005 09:43 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess elisabeth princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia spain state visit wedding 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 03:22 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]