The British Empire Thread

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Anecdotally I can say that it surprised a lot of American Catholics to hear this - they had no feel for residual anti-Catholic feeling in the UK.

sorry, but do you have proof to back this up? that is a totally inflammatory statement which i would like to see backed up...if you can.

50,000 bigots in NI are not representative of the UK btw.

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

i agree the irish nation anthem is very impressive -but its a pitty that the words to it are racist

"Racist" how are you defining this word? And what passage do you find racist?

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

this evidence is not hard to find-put up hitler and ireland on the net you will also find not only did the irish goverment tell the german goverment that the were sorry about hitlers death they also offered sanctuary to german war criminals

Yes and that was proper diplomatic protocol at the time. Ireland was a neutral state and a foriegn head of state had died. Many countries took in German officers/war criminals whatever you want to call them after the war. That was not unique. The US space program (NASA) was started by the same Nazi scientists that developed the rocket missiles at the end of the war. They took them to the US and provided research facilities, funding and a new life for them..that is just one obvious example.

Ireland also provided sanctuary to many Jews especially children before, during and after the war.

Slightly off point..what about Thatchers disgusting defence of Pinochet when the world was fully aware of his actions in Chile unlike Dev at the time?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

sorry, but do you have proof to back this up? that is a totally inflammatory statement which i would like to see backed up...if you can.

50,000 bigots in NI are not representative of the UK btw.

I used the word "residual" and I think that the lack of a modern day Catholic PM, the still remaining laws on the succession, coupled with what passes for Catholic characters in UK film and TV - including the latest "take" on "Brideshead Revisited" all contribute to an enduring sense that Catholics are "other" to the mainstream UK culture.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

I used the word "residual" and I think that the lack of a modern day Catholic PM, the still remaining laws on the succession, coupled with what passes for Catholic characters in UK film and TV - including the latest "take" on "Brideshead Revisited" all contribute to an enduring sense that Catholics are "other" to the mainstream UK culture.

you've never been to the UK have you?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you've never been to the UK have you?

Quite, quite wrong - I was an undergraduate at an English University. I think the History Department had blinders on at the time but I hear much better stuff goes on there now.

It's all a work in progress for reality in the UK imo.

partyguinness

MarchDub wrote: »

I used the word "residual" and I think that the lack of a modern day Catholic PM, the still remaining laws on the succession, coupled with what passes for Catholic characters in UK film and TV - including the latest "take" on "Brideshead Revisited" all contribute to an enduring sense that Catholics are "other" to the mainstream UK culture.

I think there is some truth in your general point. My g/friend is English and lives in England. I have been with her two years going back and forth to England prob about 3 times a month and holiday there (just spent 2 weeks there over Christmas). So I have some first hand experince.

My g/friend and her family are not religious (although her father is Scottish and from a Protestant family in Glasgow (boo hiss..lol).

Now I am not religious and I dont attend any ceremonies of any sort but of course as I am Irish I am assumed to be a staunch Catholic. Her family while not religious do mention it occasionally.

There is definitely a certain 'attitude' towards Catholics I have found. I almost feel it is a fear of Catholics. Its not obvious and I am not for one second saying there is religious bigotry in the UK but just a slight undercurrent I have definitely picked up on.

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

I used the word "residual" and I think that the lack of a modern day Catholic PM, the still remaining laws on the succession, coupled with what passes for Catholic characters in UK film and TV - including the latest "take" on "Brideshead Revisited" all contribute to an enduring sense that Catholics are "other" to the mainstream UK culture.

as a anglo/irish catholic living in the uk i have never met any anti catholic feeling in england but i have seen a lot of anti protestants in ireland in the passed .but not so much nowadays.

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

Now I am not religious and I dont attend any ceremonies of any sort but of course as I am Irish I am assumed to be a staunch Catholic. Her family while not religious do mention it occasionally.

There is definitely a certain 'attitude' towards Catholics I have found. I almost feel it is a fear of Catholics. Its not obvious and I am not for one second saying there is religious bigotry in the UK but just a slight undercurrent I have definitely picked up on.

And you think the same does not apply in Ireland? how many times do you think it has been assumed that I am a Prod, or had copmments such as "She's one of your lot" referring to an Irish protestant? My mother in law made it her business to tell me about every protestant living in their vicinity once, as if it would somehow make me feel at home That was before she gave me the lecture about having no choice which religion my daughter was brought up in and how she thought it was wrong that one of her grandchildren was baptised in an Anglican church, becuase the child's father was a Catholic:eek:

Just after my wife moved to the UK, we had a friend from Newcastle staying with us. Id known Martin for about 15 years by this time and in conversation, he mentioned he was a catholic. My wife was amazed, she didn't realise we had catholics in the uk and she was even more amazed I didn't know.

There may be resentment towards the catholic church (As opposed to catholics) in the UK, but probably no more than there is in Ireland tbh. The current pope isn't exactly helping matters either:)

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

as a anglo/irish catholic living in the uk i have never met any anti catholic feeling in england.

Getz - Why don't you get yourself engaged to Princess Beatrice just for the experience??

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Getz - Why don't you get yourself engaged to Princess Beatrice just for the experience??

why, when is Princess Beatrice going to be monarch?

remember it was once forbidden for a royal to marry a divorcee, that has now been adressed, it getz is lucky enough to marry a future monarch, then the issue of a catholicism and the monarchy will be addressed at the time.

Maybe we could get the Pope to marry an Anglican, just to balance things up a bit:)

partyguinness

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And you think the same does not apply in Ireland? how many times do you think it has been assumed that I am a Prod, or had copmments such as "She's one of your lot" referring to an Irish protestant? My mother in law made it her business to tell me about every protestant living in their vicinity once, as if it would somehow make me feel at home That was before she gave me the lecture about having no choice which religion my daughter was brought up in and how she thought it was wrong that one of her grandchildren was baptised in an Anglican church, becuase the child's father was a Catholic:eek:

Just after my wife moved to the UK, we had a friend from Newcastle staying with us. Id known Martin for about 15 years by this time and in conversation, he mentioned he was a catholic. My wife was amazed, she didn't realise we had catholics in the uk and she was even more amazed I didn't know.

There may be resentment towards the catholic church (As opposed to catholics) in the UK, but probably no more than there is in Ireland tbh. The current pope isn't exactly helping matters either:)

Absolutely the same applies in Ireland nobody could possibly suggest otherwise. Its much worse there is no point even comparing but I think that is accepted. Afterall there is a continuing religious/sectarian divide in Ireland. The last religious war in England was nearly 400 years ago so we are not really comparing like with like.

I am only referring to the UK specifically because in previous posts I was getting a sense that Ireland is somehow unique and that the UK is an enlightened utopia too sophisticated for any of sort religious intolerance.

Fratton Fred

partyguinness wrote: »

I am only referring to the UK specifically because in previous posts I was getting a sense that Ireland is somehow unique and that the UK as an enlightened utpoia too sophisticated for any of sort religious intolerance.

I'll agree that an enlightened utopia it certainly is not.

If you ever get the chance, watch the scene in "Mike Basset - England Manager" where England, Scotland and the RoI all meet up in an airport, it is brilliant

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why, when is Princess Beatrice going to be monarch?

remember it was once forbidden for a royal to marry a divorcee, that has now been adressed, it getz is lucky enough to marry a future monarch, then the issue of a catholicism and the monarchy will be addressed at the time.

Maybe we could get the Pope to marry an Anglican, just to balance things up a bit:)

It is the law that no one in succession can marry a Catholic - ref the recent marriage of Princess Anne's son, Peter. His future spouse had to renounce her Catholicism - the issue did not get resolved or even " addressed".

I am talking about civic institutional prejudices - not within religions. The Anglican Church is not at all responsible for this - it is the Settlement Act of 1701 which forbids a Catholic from sitting on the throne. It gave the throne to the German Hanoverian house and skipped over eligible English Catholics.

getz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

why, when is Princess Beatrice going to be monarch?

remember it was once forbidden for a royal to marry a divorcee, that has now been adressed, it getz is lucky enough to marry a future monarch, then the issue of a catholicism and the monarchy will be addressed at the time.

Maybe we could get the Pope to marry an Anglican, just to balance things up a bit:)

thanks but not only am i too old i am a commoner

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

"Racist" how are you defining this word? And what passage do you find racist?

saxon foe, no its not the germans that you are singing about is it

partyguinness

The only reason the Catholic Church brought in the prohibition against the clergy getting married was because in the Church were losing property via succession law to spouses when, for example, the priest died. It changed around the 12th century. Nothing to do with being closer to God:)

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

saxon foe, no its not the germans that you are singing about is it

Hilarious...how is that rascist??

The Saxon were our foe. That is simply stating fact. Are the Saxons up in arms about being unfairly tarnished. Lets ask them...lol

What about "Flower of Scotland"- poor old King Edwards army sent home? thats a tough border/emigration policy by the Scots...

The truth is most anthems are full of jingoism...leave them alone PC brigade.:p

getz

partyguinness wrote: »

The only reason the Catholic Church brought in the prohibition against the clergy getting married was because in the Church were losing property via succession law to spouses when, for example, the priest died. It changed around the 12th century. Nothing to do with being closer to God:)

rome had a chance to solve the catholic /protestent problem and bring both churches back under one banner ,but the pope rejected it about a year ago

getz

partyguinness wrote: »

Hilarious...how is that rascist??

The Saxon were our foe. That is simply stating fact. Are the Saxons up in arms about being unfairly tarnished. Lets ask them...lol

What about "Flower of Scotland"- poor old King Edwards army sent home? thats a tough border/emigration policy by the Scots...

The truth is most anthems are full of jingoism...leave them alone PC brigade.:p

listen even the goverment say its wrong -and it dosent say [were] are foe ,it say the saxon foe,

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

It is the law that no one in succession can marry a Catholic - ref the recent marriage of Princess Anne's son, Peter. His future spouse had to renounce her Catholicism - the issue did not get resolved or even " addressed".

I am talking about civic institutional prejudices - not within religions. The Anglican Church is not at all responsible for this - it is the Settlement Act of 1701 which forbids a Catholic from sitting on the throne. It gave the throne to the German Hanoverian house and skipped over eligible English Catholics.

I would suggest that her "renouncing" her catholic faith had more to do with her wanting to get married in St George's chapel in Windsor castle. She did not have to renounce catholicism at all, it just meant that if they married Peter phillips could not be king, but as he is 10th in line to the throne, I hardly see this as a situation that required addressing.

300 years ago the world was a very different place. The divisions between England and Rome as every bit as much the fault of rome as they are the English monarchy. Hardly relevant today.

partyguinness

Not being smart but what is the Catholic/Protestant problem exactly?

Do Protestants want to rejoin the Catholic Church? I was'nt aware of moves in that direction but then again I don't follow either groups.

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

listen even the goverment say its wrong -and it dosent say [were] are foe ,it say the saxon foe,

I wouldnt expect the Government to say any different but do you think they will change it? like hell they will.

getz

partyguinness wrote: »

Not being smart but what is the Catholic/Protestant problem exactly?

Do Protestants want to rejoin the Catholic Church? I was'nt aware of moves in that direction but then again I don't follow either groups.

i believe the sticking point was over married priests and woman priests -if you ever go into the high prostant church you may be forgiven to thinking you are in a catholic church-with all the latin and services, the big differance is the lack of statues

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

i believe the sticking point was over married priests and woman priests -if you ever go into the high prostant church you may be forgiven to thinking you are in a catholic church-with all the latin and services, the big differance is the lack of statues

Does this mean that the Cathlic Church will get back the cathedrals, churchs etc confiscated?

I have taken the tour in Christchurch and I love the way they are a little short on information on how the cathedral was founded 400 years before Protestantism..;)

Fratton Fred

there is also the small problem of the communion as well. catholics believe that the bread is the body of christ, Anglicans believe it is symbolic.

And Catholic Churches rarely dish out wine. No wine, no Anglicans I'm afraid:D

getz

partyguinness wrote: »

Does this mean that the Cathlic Church will get back the cathedrals, churchs etc confiscated?

I have taken the tour in Christchurch and I love the way they are a little short on information on how the cathedral was founded 400 years before Protestantism..;)

if it all came under one church it woudent matter-5 years ago i was working for the british council in manchester and we had a visit of 12 south american nuns the coach driver asked me if i could tell him if i knew of anyplace to take them like an idiot i am i suggested he could take them to the cathedral in manchester [forgetting about them being catholic] when they came back i was told they loved it and dident realise it was a protestant church untill later-still one of them gave me a kiss on the cheek

partyguinness

getz wrote: »

if it all came under one church it woudent matter-5 years ago i was working for the british council in manchester and we had a visit of 12 south american nuns the coach driver asked me if i could tell him if i knew of anyplace to take them like an idiot i am i suggested he could take them to the cathedral in manchester [forgetting about them being catholic] when they came back i was told they loved it and dident realise it was a protestant church untill later-still one of them gave me a kiss on the cheek

I have visited Cathedrals in England and Ireland and to be honest I dont know the difference at first glance. The last one I was at was Litchfield, West Midlands.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would suggest that her "renouncing" her catholic faith had more to do with her wanting to get married in St George's chapel in Windsor castle. She did not have to renounce catholicism at all, it just meant that if they married Peter phillips could not be king, but as he is 10th in line to the throne, I hardly see this as a situation that required addressing.

300 years ago the world was a very different place. The divisions between England and Rome as every bit as much the fault of rome as they are the English monarchy. Hardly relevant today.

[I lost this thread for a bit]...
You have made my point for me - Catholicism had to be renounced IF Peter Phillips was to remain part of the succession. He would have lost that valuable status which he obviously - and she also - did not want to surrender. I have no issue with their private decisions but of course the law should have been addressed in the broader arena of the 1701 Act which remains still in force. What other opportunity is there if not when the Act is applied - or threatened to be as in this case? Peter Phillips would have lost his succession rights and status... what utter nonsense in this day and age.


The part I never understood is the continuing willingness of English Catholics to remain silent and go along with this nonsense. But then there never was a backbone there - it took the Irishman Daniel O'Connell to fight the parliamentary ban.

As for the atmosphere surrounding the Act in the first place - Rome was not threatening the British parliament or Monarchy verbally or militarily when the succession act was passed. There is absolutely no record of such. It was the perception and paranoia of the British at the time which led to the Act - and the previous forced removal of James II from the throne in 1688.

Hookey

MarchDub wrote: »

[I lost this thread for a bit]...
You have made my point for me - Catholicism had to be renounced IF Peter Phillips was to remain part of the succession. He would have lost that valuable status which he obviously - and she also - did not want to surrender. I have no issue with their private decisions but of course the law should have been addressed in the broader arena of the 1701 Act which remains still in force. What other opportunity is there if not when the Act is applied - or threatened to be as in this case? Peter Phillips would have lost his succession rights and status... what utter nonsense in this day and age.

I thought the reason they couldn't be Catholic was because that would be incompatible with being the head of the Church of England? I can't see how being Catholic and Head of a protestant church are reconcilable.

MarchDub wrote: »

The part I never understood is the continuing willingness of English Catholics to remain silent and go along with this nonsense. But then there never was a backbone there - it took the Irishman Daniel O'Connell to fight the parliamentary ban.

Like I (and others) have said, because no-one really cares. The only way being a catholic could affect your prospects is if you want to marry a royal, hardly worth taking to the streets is it? Sure, a 100 years ago you'd have had a point, but you were dealing with a society who (as we know) wouldn't think twice about violent repression, so the risks of protest were much higher (ask a trade unionist, never mind a catholic).

MarchDub wrote: »

As for the atmosphere surrounding the Act in the first place - Rome was not threatening the British parliament or Monarchy verbally or militarily when the succession act was passed. There is absolutely no record of such. It was the perception and paranoia of the British at the time which led to the Act - and the previous forced removal of James II from the throne in 1688.

The catholic "threat" was ongoing, and personified by France and Louis XIV; and the removal of James II only happened because he suddenly produced an heir who would have been catholic (with the attendant problems for an independent church of England - see above); if he hadn't produced an heir he would have been allowed to continue in power, keeping his religion to himself (as Charles II was rumoured to have done). Hypocracy? Yes. Realpolitik? Also yes. And to say the Pope wasn't "threatening" Britain is a bit disingenuous; all of Britain's enemies or rivals, with the exception of Holland, were catholic.