Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The British Empire Thread

Options
1…1617192122…29

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    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.
    the act has not been applied. Two people fell in love, decided to marry. it turns out that if they marry either he gives up his (Tenuous) right to the throne, or she gives up her Catholicism. big deal. peter is/was never goning to be King so why challenge a country's constitution for something that is completely irrelevant. You are trying to make a deal out of something that is, quite frankly, a non issue.
    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.
    aahh yeah, that's right, the Irish saved the world from slavery as well didn't they:rolleyes:

    It is a non issue, apart from you, no one cares.


  • Options
    #543
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    the act has not been applied. Two people fell in love, decided to marry. it turns out that if they marry either he gives up his (Tenuous) right to the throne, or she gives up her Catholicism. big deal. peter is/was never goning to be King so why challenge a country's constitution for something that is completely irrelevant. You are trying to make a deal out of something that is, quite frankly, a non issue.

    aahh yeah, that's right, the Irish saved the world from slavery as well didn't they:rolleyes:

    It is a non issue, apart from you, no one cares.

    So I guess things become "non issues" when you lose an argument. Nice try.


  • Options
    #544
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Hookey wrote: »


    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?

    A Catholic can't be head of state in Britain - that is the issue being discussed here. The utter laughable nonsense of swanning around the world "spreading democracy" and having that still on their books.


  • Options
    #545
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    So I guess things become "non issues" when you lose an argument. Nice try.

    what arguement?
    MarchDub wrote: »
    A Catholic can't be head of state in Britain - that is the issue being discussed here. The utter laughable nonsense of swanning around the world "spreading democracy" and having that still on their books.

    toys out of pram?


  • Options
    #546
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »



    toys out of pram?

    Oh sorry to hear that - I hope someone picks them up for you.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    MarchDub wrote: »
    A Catholic can't be head of state in Britain - that is the issue being discussed here. The utter laughable nonsense of swanning around the world "spreading democracy" and having that still on their books.
    the reason for the act in the first place was that england was a protestant country -king james wanted roman catholicism back in england -the civil war was still remembered by many and no one wanted to tolerate more years of military conflict, when riots started in monmouth and argyll in the streets things had to change that is why he was kicked out[remember he became a catholic in 1671] he was replaced by william of orange james then fled to france,then led the uprising in ireland 1689-we all know the rest dont we ?


  • Options
    #548
    Hookey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    MarchDub wrote: »
    A Catholic can't be head of state in Britain - that is the issue being discussed here. The utter laughable nonsense of swanning around the world "spreading democracy" and having that still on their books.

    Yeah but you can't separate Head of State from Head of The Church Of England, that's the point. If you broke the connection between the two, then there would be no constitutional barrier to the Queen (or King) being Catholic, Hindu or Pastafarian.

    As for "democracy", no-one's under any illusions the Britain is a democracy, but they're hardly alone. Taken a look at the US Congress lately? Or the EU?


  • Options
    #549
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    getz wrote: »
    the reason for the act in the first place was that england was a protestant country -king james wanted roman catholicism back in england -the civil war was still remembered by many and no one wanted to tolerate more years of military conflict, when riots started in monmouth and argyll in the streets things had to change that is why he was kicked out[remember he became a catholic in 1671] he was replaced by william of orange james then fled to france,then led the uprising in ireland 1689-we all know the rest dont we ?

    What you are doing - like any well trained English schoolboy or girl or anyone under their influence - is render the Whig version of events. Been there...read ALL the transcripts. It was ignorance and superstitious fear that led events more than anything else. Therein followed the Penal Code against Catholics with dispossession of property and disenfranchisement. All the while claiming to be a leader in rights and democracy ...

    But - back to the issue - how does this answer the question of why to this day the Head of State in Britain cannot be Catholic or anything other than Anglican? How modern and enlightened is that? Not very imo.


  • Options
    #550
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    MarchDub wrote: »
    What you are doing - like any well trained English schoolboy or girl or anyone under their influence - is render the Whig version of events. Been there...read ALL the transcripts. It was ignorance and superstitious fear that led events more than anything else. Therein followed the Penal Code against Catholics with dispossession of property and disenfranchisement. All the while claiming to be a leader in rights and democracy ...

    But - back to the issue - how does this answer the question of why to this day the Head of State in Britain cannot be Catholic or anything other than Anglican? How modern and enlightened is that? Not very imo.
    the head of the state in britain is the head of the anglican church[defender of the faith] you may as well say why dose the pope have to be a catholic


  • Options
    #551
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    getz wrote: »
    the head of the state in britain is the head of the anglican church[defender of the faith] you may as well say why dose the pope have to be a catholic

    You have hit on the very problem - what medieval thinking has a country have the head of state also head of a church? Where else in the modern world do we find such absurdity? Oh....yes.

    Well, that ongoing war makes a lot of sense. The pot calling the kettle black - again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Hookey wrote: »
    . Taken a look at the US Congress lately? Or the EU?

    I agree with you on the EU. A lot of hot air there...

    As for the US Congress there are 44 Black members out of a total of 435 members according to stats from the Black Caucus. The African-American population is around 11% of total so that is actually a fair representation. And then there is Barack Obama.


  • Options
    #553
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    If I can add something...

    I guess thats the root of the problem here..the intertwinning of Government and religion which is most unsatisfactory. By all means keep the monarch as a Protestant but remove her constitutional powers. Its just very primative in this day and age.


  • Options
    #554
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    MarchDub wrote: »
    You have hit on the very problem - what medieval thinking has a country have the head of state also head of a church? Where else in the modern world do we find such absurdity? Oh....yes.

    Well, that ongoing war makes a lot of sense. The pot calling the kettle black - again.


    what problem? tell me who this problem affects? from the sound of things, the people who suffer most are the royals themselves.

    shall we organise a poll of catholics in the UK and find out how many feel oppressed by the current situation? lets not. that would be a waste of time, a bit like changing a constitution that, as yet, does not need changing.

    there are moves afoot to seperate church from state, this is happening in a discreet fashion to help the change go through, because when it does, life will continue exactly the same as it does now. if the pro church lobby get onboard then it could complicate the whole thing.


  • Options
    #555
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    partyguinness wrote: »
    If I can add something...

    I guess thats the root of the problem here..the intertwinning of Government and religion which is most unsatisfactory. By all means keep the monarch as a Protestant but remove her constitutional powers. Its just very primative in this day and age.

    it is, but I can recall only once in my life time that her powers have ever been used. the monarchy are under no illusions as to their actual level of power in the UK. If they started throwing their theoretical power around then it would lead to their downfall, so at the moment they keep themselves to themselves and everyone is happy.


  • Options
    #556
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    partyguinness wrote: »
    If I can add something...

    I guess thats the root of the problem here..the intertwinning of Government and religion which is most unsatisfactory. By all means keep the monarch as a Protestant but remove her constitutional powers. Its just very primative in this day and age.
    i wouldent get into that if i was you, we both know if the pope sneezes ireland gets a cold


  • Options
    #557
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    it is, but I can recall only once in my life time that her powers have ever been used. the monarchy are under no illusions as to their actual level of power in the UK. If they started throwing their theoretical power around then it would lead to their downfall, so at the moment they keep themselves to themselves and everyone is happy.


    One could almost say that there is a 'cold war' between the government and monarchy with a tense but manageable balance of power in existence...:)


  • Options
    #558
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    getz wrote: »
    i wouldent get into that if i was you, we both know if the pope sneezes ireland gets a cold


    That was certainly true in the past..but Ireland has rejected the official line from the Catholic/Vatican on several occasions over the past 30 years eg. abortion, contraceptives, divorce, the removal of the special status of the Catholic Church in 1973 etc. So I certainly dont think that statment is true today.


  • Options
    #559
    Hookey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    MarchDub wrote: »
    I agree with you on the EU. A lot of hot air there...

    As for the US Congress there are 44 Black members out of a total of 435 members according to stats from the Black Caucus. The African-American population is around 11% of total so that is actually a fair representation. And then there is Barack Obama.

    That's not what I was referring to; I was referring to the system of patronage that gets those congressmen (and senators, and presidents) elected in the first place. And when you do get to exercise your "democratic rights", you're given a choice between the right-wing guy, or the even-more-right-wing guy. I suppose you could argue with the EU commission that no-one's even pretending that the proles have a say in the matter...


  • Options
    #560
    Hookey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 217 ✭✭Hookey


    partyguinness wrote: »
    If I can add something...

    I guess thats the root of the problem here..the intertwinning of Government and religion which is most unsatisfactory. By all means keep the monarch as a Protestant but remove her constitutional powers. Its just very primative in this day and age.

    Or better yet, keep the constitutional powers and get rid of the head of church bit, as no-one seems to give a damn about that, and the Anglican church is on the verge of collapse anyway.


  • Options
    #561
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    partyguinness wrote: »
    That was certainly true in the past..but Ireland has rejected the official line from the Catholic/Vatican on several occasions over the past 30 years eg. abortion, contraceptives, divorce, the removal of the special status of the Catholic Church in 1973 etc. So I certainly dont think that statment is true today.
    you are far off the mark --ireland has one of the most draconian abortion laws in the word only 5 cases in 50000 preg are alowed to have a abortion and only then if there life is in danger -over 150,000 irish girls travel to the uk to have a obortion -the facts are on the web, so the church still has a big say -at least the little old dear who is the queen harms no one


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    getz wrote: »
    you are far off the mark --ireland has one of the most draconian abortion laws in the word only 5 cases in 50000 preg are alowed to have a abortion and only then if there life is in danger -over 150,000 irish girls travel to the uk to have a obortion -the facts are on the web, so the church still has a big say -at least the little old dear who is the queen harms no one

    Draconian?....that really depends on your point of view..I am against unrestricted access to abortion and it has nothing to do with the catholic church..in one way I am pround of the fact that we are so conscience of abortion..

    Many many Irish people are against the killing of an unborn child and having strict laws in relation to the intentional killing of an unborn child is hardly draconian..nothing to do with the Catholic Church..thats just patronising.

    But yes it is highly unsatisfactory that Irish women go to England every year for abortions..but then again thousands go the Amsterdam every year to consume drugs and buy sex and that is illegal is Ireland? Does that mean we have draconian drug and sex laws?

    But lets not turn it into an abortion debate...what about my other points? We have rejected the Vatican on several important issues so you are incorrect if you believe the church has a strangle hold over over minds.


  • Options
    #563
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Draconian?....that really depends on your point of view..I am against unrestricted access to abortion and it has nothing to do with the catholic church..in one way I am pround of the fact that we are so conscience of abortion..

    Many many Irish people are against the killing of an unborn child and having strict laws in relation to the intentional killing of an unborn child is hardly draconian..nothing to do with the Catholic Church..thats just patronising.

    But yes it is highly unsatisfactory that Irish women go to England every year for abortions..but then again thousands go the Amsterdam every year to consume drugs and buy sex and that is illegal is Ireland? Does that mean we have draconian drug and sex laws?

    But lets not turn it into an abortion debate...what about my other points? We have rejected the Vatican on several important issues so you are incorrect if you believe the church has a strangle hold over over minds.
    many irish people///catholic teachings you mean, i am sure if the church wasent so much against contraception less irish girls would get preg -may be aids in african countrys would not be as bad


  • Options
    #564
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    getz wrote: »
    many irish people///catholic teachings you mean, i am sure if the church wasent so much against contraception less irish girls would get preg -may be aids in african countrys would not be as bad

    Getz - This is not solely a Catholic issue by any means although the church teaching is certainly against abortion. It was the fundamentalist churches in the US - Baptists, Presbyterians - which led the world wide fight against abortion and sent envoys to Ireland to push for the "Right to Life" as they term it. NI was never keen on the idea also - abortion is still illegal in NI.

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-irelands-record-abortion-figures-shock-14126803.html


  • Options
    #565
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    yes you are right its not only the catholic church its most other religions as well but why should any religion force other people into there belief [now we are going back to Henry V111]


  • Options
    #566
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    getz wrote: »
    many irish people///catholic teachings you mean, i am sure if the church wasent so much against contraception less irish girls would get preg -may be aids in african countrys would not be as bad


    I must reject your assertion/implication that Irish people are against unrestricted access to abortion simply because that is the Catholic Church teaching. I must say that that is an extremely narrow view of Irish people and displays a fundamental lack of understanding.

    There is in fact abortion (albeit limited) in Ireland. It is reserved for medical cases when there is there is a danger to the live of the mother and/or child. In fact, the Catholic Church are against abortion ab initio...and Ireland/Irish people have accepted abortion in limited circumstances...that is hardly blind acceptance.

    Are you familiar with the "X case (1992)" and the subseqent constitutional referendum?


  • Options
    #567
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    The AIDS situation is a completely different argument and yes the Catholic Church (official) attitude is deplorable but hardly surprising.


  • Options
    #568
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    partyguinness wrote: »
    I must reject your assertion/implication that Irish people are against unrestricted access to abortion simply because that is the Catholic Church teaching. I must say that that is an extremely narrow view of Irish people and displays a fundamental lack of understanding.

    There is in fact abortion (albeit limited) in Ireland. It is reserved for medical cases when there is there is a danger to the live of the mother and/or child. In fact, the Catholic Church are against abortion ab initio...and Ireland/Irish people have accepted abortion in limited circumstances...that is hardly blind acceptance.

    Are you familiar with the "X case (1992)" and the subseqent constitutional referendum?
    yes i have covered that only 5 cases out of 50,000 execpted


  • Options
    #569
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    getz wrote: »
    many irish people///catholic teachings you mean, i am sure if the church wasent so much against contraception less irish girls would get preg -may be aids in african countrys would not be as bad


    Are you making a correlation between unplanned pregnancies in Irish women and the Catholic Church teachings?

    "Irish women are getting pregant and going to England for abortion because the Catholic Church frowns on contraception" This is nonsense. So what is the reason behind the high abortion rates amongst English women? If its the Catholic Churches fault in Ireland.

    The Catholic Church are also against sex outside marriage which 9 times out of 10 is the result of unplanned pregnancies.


  • Options
    #570
    partyguinness
    Registered Users Posts: 8,207 ✭✭✭partyguinness


    getz wrote: »
    yes i have covered that only 5 cases out of 50,000 execpted

    Sorry can you make that point clearer? 50,000 abortions? that is a cumulative figure I presume?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    partyguinness wrote: »
    Sorry can you make that point clearer? 50,000 abortions? that is a cumulative figure I presume?
    sorry the figure quoted should have been 5000 to 5-- all this is on the irish web site www.wsm.ie it also talks about the influence of the church in goverment


Advertisement