Succession to the Crown Act 2013, Part 1: 2011 - Sep 2022

[cepe]

The religious issue certainly complicates things. I doubt there would be anywhere near as much controversy if it was just about the sexual discrimination. It's a shame it doesn't seem that one can be done without the other.

They can be separated, but only if the the proposed Act is amended. There is always a chance that the Lords might send back an amendment

 

[Roslyn]

They can be separated, but only if the the proposed Act is amended. There is always a chance that the Lords might send back an amendment

But are they likely to? I think that to many people the religious issue is the more important one. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[cepe]

Well DOE I don't think we have to live by an 18th century decision in the 21st century. I don't believe the Windsors need the C of E to justify their place on the throne.....that is based on public support which in fact is greater than support for the C of E or any other faith group. The UK and western Europe are largely secular and multi cultural places and having governments involved in the appointment of Bishops or church debates about who can or cannot become a Bishop because of their gender or who can or cannot marry is ridiculous.

This is interesting because you've raised something I wanted to ask about. I thought that for many of the royal houses, there was a link to the national/state religion. The governments are secular but ceremonies, crownings, thanksgivings, weddings, christenings, funerals take place in churches/cathedrals.

Have I misunderstood?

 

[AdmirerUS]

I thought the Catholic Church only required that the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage promise to do their best to raise their children as Catholics and even then only if marrying in an RC service. Haven't they done away with making the non Catholic partner sign a pledge to raise the children as Catholics even when marrying in an RC service? If the potential heir was marrying in an Anglican service why would any of these issues even come up?

NGazaline - the real issue is that as a Catholic, if you do not agree, your Catholic Bishop will say that the Catholic partner is living in a state where they may not receive the sacraments. So, no sacrament of reconciliation (confession/forgiveness), a Baptism that is not recognized, no last rights, if needed, and no way to receive weekly communion (the body and blood of Christ, which is not a big deal in other Christian churches, but is huge for Catholics).

It's a really ugly (my word - because I have had family go through this) scenario, where the Catholic partner is in many ways shunned by their faith with enormous consequences for the afterlife of themselves and their child.

 

[Roslyn]

It's a really ugly (my word - because I have had family go through this) scenario, where the Catholic partner is in many ways shunned by their faith with enormous consequences for the afterlife of themselves and their child.

If they feel that strongly about their religion, they have the choice to not marry the non-Catholic person. This is an issue for all the peoples of the world who marry people not of their culture or religion, not just Catholics & Protestants. It's only an issue in the current context because it is only Catholics who are excluded, and I think there are sound reasons, even though it is undoubtedly discriminatory, and that disestablishment is the answer.

 

[NGalitzine]

NGazaline - the real issue is that as a Catholic, if you do not agree, your Catholic Bishop will say that the Catholic partner is living in a state where they may not receive the sacraments. So, no sacrament of reconciliation (confession/forgiveness), a Baptism that is not recognized, no last rights, if needed, and no way to receive weekly communion (the body and blood of Christ, which is not a big deal in other Christian churches, but is huge for Catholics).

It's a really ugly (my word - because I have had family go through this) scenario, where the Catholic partner is in many ways shunned by their faith with enormous consequences for the afterlife of themselves and their child.

So, as in so many other areas, the RC Church discriminates against other Christian faiths by not recognizing the marriage of a Catholic person to a non-Catholic if it is performed in another Christian faith, will not recognize the baptism of their child by another Christian faith as valid and will say such a childs "afterlife" is threatened??? How Christian of them.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Well DOE I don't think we have to live by an 18th century decision in the 21st century. I don't believe the Windsors need the C of E to justify their place on the throne.....that is based on public support which in fact is greater than support for the C of E or any other faith group. The UK and western Europe are largely secular and multi cultural places and having governments involved in the appointment of Bishops or church debates about who can or cannot become a Bishop because of their gender or who can or cannot marry is ridiculous.

We should abolish the monarch then, because the institution isn't going to attract any new followers because of disestablished.
I am one monarchist that will turn in their 'membership' card.

This is interesting because you've raised something I wanted to ask about. I thought that for many of the royal houses, there was a link to the national/state religion. The governments are secular but ceremonies, crownings, thanksgivings, weddings, christenings, funerals take place in churches/cathedrals.

Have I misunderstood?

Very good point

 

[NGalitzine]

This is interesting because you've raised something I wanted to ask about. I thought that for many of the royal houses, there was a link to the national/state religion. The governments are secular but ceremonies, crownings, thanksgivings, weddings, christenings, funerals take place in churches/cathedrals.

Have I misunderstood?

Well it is possible to be married and buried in a religious service without being head of the church. In Catholic countries the monarch is obviously not head of the church since that distinction belongs to a German man living in The Vatican. In Norway the King was until recently Head of the Lutheran Church but that ended when the state Lutheran Church was disestablished. Not sure if Europes other Protestant monarchs are head of their respective churches but doubt it.
Only the British monarch has a coronation. Other European monarchs are not crowned. Most only take an oath of office, usually in front of Parliament. The Installation of the Dutch monarch takes place in a church but it is a non-religious ceremony. The Norwegian monarch, after swearing his oath, has a religious blessing of his reign at a later date.

We should abolish the monarch then, because the institution isn't going to attract any new followers because of disestablished.
I am one monarchist that will turn in their 'membership' card.

You may well be the only person who supports a monarch based on the current fact they are Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I can think of many who believe that particular distinction is a turn off from supporting the monarchy. They might well look at the monarchy in a better light with the religious role eliminated, especially since most of HMs subjects do not share the same faith.

 

[EIIR]

So, as in so many other areas, the RC Church discriminates against other Christian faiths by not recognizing the marriage of a Catholic person to a non-Catholic if it is performed in another Christian faith, will not recognize the baptism of their child by another Christian faith as valid and will say such a childs "afterlife" is threatened??? How Christian of them.

There's a reason the RC Church describes itself as the 'one, true faith'. They believe that anyone who is not in communion with the RCC is basically condemned to hell, whether they're exemplary Anglicans or Presbyterians or whatever. They refuse to see the Protestant churches as 'churches' at all. As far as they're concerned, the Vatican has a complete monopoly on admission to heaven.

The change to the succession would have profound difficulties for a RC mother or father of a future British sovereign. That parent will have to watch their child be brought up in a religion that, as far as RCC teachings are concerned, inevitably means they're damned to an eternity of cohabitation with the devil himself. If nothing else, that would be pretty cruel for a RC parent.

 

[AdmirerUS]

If they feel that strongly about their religion, they have the choice to not marry the non-Catholic person. This is an issue for all the peoples of the world who marry people not of their culture or religion, not just Catholics & Protestants. It's only an issue in the current context because it is only Catholics who are excluded, and I think there are sound reasons, even though it is undoubtedly discriminatory, and that disestablishment is the answer.

Ah, but then love raises it's ugly head. What is one to do? The logical and faith based choice leads one way and the heart based choice leads another. In today's society, I have known too many people who cannot say "No" to an unwise dip in the sheets, much less to a conflict riddled union. For you Roslyn it is an easy choice, but for others, it is not.
Sorry Mods - back to primogeniture!

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

You may well be the only person who supports a monarch based on the current fact they are Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I can think of many who believe that particular distinction is a turn off from supporting the monarchy. They might well look at the monarchy in a better light with the religious role eliminated, especially since most of HMs subjects do not share the same faith.

Really, people are just clamouring to become royalists, except for the fact the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

New one on me

 

[AdmirerUS]

So, as in so many other areas, the RC Church discriminates against other Christian faiths by not recognizing the marriage of a Catholic person to a non-Catholic if it is performed in another Christian faith, will not recognize the baptism of their child by another Christian faith as valid and will say such a childs "afterlife" is threatened??? How Christian of them.

Yes, hence "I was raised Catholic." But true faith is a calling that is hard to ignore. I was very glad my mother had her faith when she fell ill. It gave her the strength to die with dignity.

 

[NGalitzine]

Really, people are just clamouring to become royalists, except for the fact the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

New one on me

Did I say clamouring??? I think not.
What I did suggest is that there are people who are turned off from the monarchy because of the religious linkage and they they may look more favourably (or perhaps less negatively if you prefer) if that religious linkage were removed.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Really, people are just clamouring to become royalists, except for the fact the Queen is Supreme Governor of the Church of England?

New one on me

Duke - I get your point. But Britain has become very diverse - as is Canada when you look at the entire country. Some cities, like Toronto are wonderful melting pots of culture. Not all in the pot see upholding the COE as a major motivator.

However Britain is not even so very churchy (Trends in UK Church attendance) these days. Without regard for the Queen's role - people do make their own faith based choices.

 

[Osipi]

Ah the religious part of this legislation seems to really be as sticky as a piece of fly paper on a outhouse wall. The debates here are so interesting and I imagine they'd be quite as interesting when discussed by the legislators.

The first thing that comes to mind is that both the CoE and RCC put the same person as a basis of their entire belief system and that is Jesus Christ Himself.

Examining that fact, His words give a glimmer of perhaps how this should be handled. "Render unto Caeser the things that are Caeser's and render unto God the things that are God's".

As an outsider looking in, I have no solution or opinion on which way this all should be resolved, I just find it interesting to watch.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Osipi - I think it is easier to watch this debate from the US - where we are raised on a steady diet separating Church and State. We know that drill. But here I am feeling the pain of my fellow forum members who know that Church and Ruler march together as one.

 

[NGalitzine]

The change to the succession would have profound difficulties for a RC mother or father of a future British sovereign. That parent will have to watch their child be brought up in a religion that, as far as RCC teachings are concerned, inevitably means they're damned to an eternity of cohabitation with the devil himself. If nothing else, that would be pretty cruel for a RC parent.

Well since we don't really go in for forced marriages these days presumably the Catholic partner in the marriage would be aware of all of this and then exercise their God given free will to decide if their faith is more important that the person they believe they love and want to spend their lives with. If faith wins out no problem. If love wins out presumably they entered into the marriage with their eyes open. They option of conversion also remains open to them. I suppose they could just go to the local registry office and avoid religious complications.

Personally if God exists I doubt very much He/She care which club you go to in order to worship or if you go to any club at all if you are a believer.

As far as the changes proposed go I believe it will still require the monarch to be Anglican so the Catholic partner would be risking their childs birthright if it were baptised as RC and presumably this would have been considered before marrying and presumably the Anglican part of the marriage would have had their input as well into the childs faith.

 

[royalistbert]

The Bill has already been presented to Parliament so I don't know what you all blubbing on about. Solve the issue now instead of brushing it under the Carpet for another 60 years.

 

[Roslyn]

As far as the changes proposed go I believe it will still require the monarch to be Anglican so the Catholic partner would be risking their childs birthright if it were baptised as RC and presumably this would have been considered before marrying and presumably the Anglican part of the marriage would have had their input as well into the childs faith.

In practical terms, I cannot see it becoming a serious issue. Would the heir or someone very close in line really be likely to allow themselves to form the sort of close relationship with a dedicated Roman Catholic that could lead to them seriously considering marriage?

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Can someone explain the point of having a sovereign in 2013 if the very reason we have the House of Hanover is to uphold the Reformed Protestant Faith.
Call me old fashioned but when someone takes an oath, they should uphold it.
To many monarchists , the office of sovereign is a holy office and to like minded people we do not follow the latest fashions or whatever hairstyle Catherine is rocking. It is a religious office

To me the office is holy and divine and HM is styled as thus for a reason. Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness

 

[Roslyn]

To me the office is holy and divine and HM is style as thus for a reason. Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness

When I was still a monarchist, this was a part of HM's title that I, being an atheist, chose to ignore.

 

[EIIR]

The heart often rules the head. It's pretty easy to see a scenario where a RC marries into the RF, accepting the succession rules but whose feelings on the matter may well change. That royal will be sitting in mass, or attending confession, basically being told that their Anglican child is doomed to eternal damnation. That couldn't be easy to live with.

I'm somewhat shocked at the flippant manner in which some say that it's obvious that the CoE should be disestablished, along with the removal of the monarch's traditional role as supreme governor. To do so would be to basically rip the British constitution, many centuries in the making, to shreds. This would not be a cosmetic change, it would require an overhaul of the entire British state. Such enormous changes are generally something that the British people view with a healthy skepticism.

Last year the Queen herself articulated what the established church has done for the UK:

Addressing the gathering, the Queen said the Church of England had "gently and assuredly" created an environment for other faith communities and people of no faith to live freely.
"Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society - more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17047885

To my mind, the present setup works pretty well in the UK. There is no perfect system of government or constitutional architecture. Any changes to the British constitution need to be considered in a measured and careful manner. In other words, the opposite to what Calamity Clegg has done.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

When I was still a monarchist, this was a part of HM's title that I, being an atheist, chose to ignore.

You're also a republican now. So it shouldn't matter what HM is style as.

 

[cepe]

Here is Nick Clegg's response to PRince Charles - I find (in the written text of the article) his example of James I marriage to Anne of Denmark ineresting, as opposed to Jamess II marriage to MAry of Modena - and we know what happened next!

I'd be interested in views on the comment about Louis XIVth of France.


Nick Clegg dismisses Prince Charles' fears on royal laws - Telegraph#

 

[COUNTESS]

The Queeen is no more queen "By the Grace of God", than anyone is anything in their job. This is just hooey that they guy with the biggest sword, promulgated, so that when he ruled, he was respected and feared. This is how the queen got her job. She was born to the right family. Her ancestors, ruled by might and fear and used God. A monarch in any country could be any religion that exists there and a state church is ridiculous in this day and age. God doesn't hover over any one church, he is there for all, if you believe. The rest is man made nonsense to create an awe of strength and "divine right". All that has become a non-starter in the 21st century.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

Charles is an Anglican, William is more of an Anglican than his father and William's children will be Anglican. After that the whole institution will worship at the Mosque of England , so really its a moot point.

 

[Roslyn]

You're also a republican now. So it shouldn't matter what HM is style as.

I might be a republican, but the British monarch is still my Head of State, and here her title is: "Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth."

I was wrong in saying it was only as a monarchist that I chose to ignore it; I still choose to ignore it. And I am quite sure that there are plenty of fellow atheists and secular humanists, and members of other religions, in the UK and other Realms, and maybe even practising Anglicans, who do not like the connection between Church and State and would favour disestablishment.

 

[NGalitzine]

Can someone explain the point of having a sovereign in 2013 if the very reason we have the House of Hanover is to uphold the Reformed Protestant Faith.
Call me old fashioned but when someone takes an oath, they should uphold it.
To many monarchists , the office of sovereign is a holy office and to like minded people we do not follow the latest fashions or whatever hairstyle Catherine is rocking. It is a religious office

To me the office is holy and divine and HM is styled as thus for a reason. Her Most Excellent Majesty Elizabeth The Second by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, Sovereign of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, whom may God preserve and bless with long life, health and honour and all worldly happiness

Somehow I very much doubt that the people who gathered along the Thames to watch the Jubilee boat parade or who gathered in the Mall waiting for HM to appear on the balcony thought they were looking at a Holy personage or a religious figure. They gathered to show their love/respect/admiration for the Queen of the United Kingdom who reigns By The Grace of The People. The monarch exists to be the living, non political, symbol of the nation and its history.

 

[Duke-of-Earl]

^^^^ Your opinion and I respect it but I disagree

 

[royalistbert]

This thread has become to political for my liking.