Anti-catholism athe heart of the british royal family

blinding

I would like to the views of posters on the institutionalised bigotry/discrimination at the heart of the royal family.

In light of the queens visit to Ireland and the imminent royal wedding do posters here feel that it is acceptable that in a modern democracy that it is okay to have a law that specifically discriminates against one section of that society i.e, catholics.

If Prince William had fallen in love with a catholic woman then he cold not have married his love unless he either gave up his right to the throne or persuaded his love to change her religion.

Is this an acceptable way to behave in a modern democracy in this day and age particularly when the Monarch is to be head of state to all of the people of that state ?

I would be happy if a moderator set up a poll as to whether people think this is acceptable in todays world ?

mike65

everything you say is right,




























okay we can close this now.

Yakuza

Err, as far as I know, the Queen (or whomever the ruling monarch of the UK is at the time) is the head of the Church of England (dating back, presumably, to Henry VIII), so William will (in time) adopt that mantle. So, given that fact, it's not unreasonable to require him to marry someone within that religion (unless, as you say, he wants to relinquish his claim to the throne (as Edward VII did in the 30's, for *shock* wanting to marry a divorcée)). The Queen's sister fell in love with a divorced man but wouldn't not have been allowed to marry him, merely for being divorced.

Their religion, their rules. Nothing to do with politics. I don't think it would matter if any potential partner of an heir to the throne were Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Jehovah's Witness/ Mormon/Sun-worshipper/Buddihst etc; it's just not on the cards to marry them if you want to keep your claim to the throne.

getz

blinding wrote: »

I would like to the views of posters on the institutionalised bigotry/discrimination at the heart of the royal family.

In light of the queens visit to Ireland and the imminent royal wedding do posters here feel that it is acceptable that in a modern democracy that it is okay to have a law that specifically discriminates against one section of that society i.e, catholics.

If Prince William had fallen in love with a catholic woman then he cold not have married his love unless he either gave up his right to the throne or persuaded his love to change her religion.

Is this an acceptable way to behave in a modern democracy in this day and age particularly when the Monarch is to be head of state to all of the people of that state ?

I would be happy if a moderator set up a poll as to whether people think this is acceptable in todays world ?

if you know anything about the british royals,you should know that one day he will be the head of the church of england, if the pope could marry, do you believe he would be allowed to marry a non -catholic, i suspect another anti-brit agenda,

later12

Is this an acceptable way to behave in a modern democracy

The United Kingdom is not a modern democracy. It remains a monarchy; charging it with bigotry on top of according extraordinary privileges or representative rights, including those set out in Lascelles Principles, to those who benefit from an accident of birth is a bit like charging Mussolini with a breach of the peace.

The whole formalised class system in the UK needs to be rooted out. I say that as someone with a deep affinity with Britain, and with a great deal of respect for the British people, but the whole thing is quite daft and not conducive to an open, forward-driven society ruled and represented by its people, for its people, and with its people.

Mind you, my biggest issue with the monarchy is not the cost. The monarchy cost a rather measly £14m per annum to the British exchequer, whereas the likes of the Prince's trust gives out £40m p/a and tourism is said to benefit by about £500m from visits to monarchial sites alone.

Nevertheless, I would rather see a President Elizbath Windsor welcomed in Ireland, as two grown up nations shaking off the baggage of a shared history of naivity and a foolishness of the most immense proportions.

getz

if prince william wanted to marry a catholic girl he could,he would have to give up he right to the british throne,as he could not be head of the church of england and be married out side it,if the pope could marry do you think he would be allowed to marry a protestant,prince william would have to marry her in a protestant church as the catholic church would not allow him to marry her without pre-conditions,now what was that about modern democracy ?i smell another anti-british thread starting up,

KeithAFC

Don't see the problem to be honest. Whats so important about the Catholic religion?

Nodin

Yakuza wrote: »

Err, as far as I know, the Queen (or whomever the ruling monarch of the UK is at the time) is the head of the Church of England (dating back, presumably, to Henry VIII), so William will (in time) adopt that mantle. So, given that fact, it's not unreasonable to require him to marry someone within that religion (unless, as you say, he wants to relinquish his claim to the throne (as Edward VII did in the 30's, for *shock* wanting to marry a divorcée)). The Queen's sister fell in love with a divorced man but wouldn't not have been allowed to marry him, merely for being divorced.

Their religion, their rules. Nothing to do with politics. I don't think it would matter if any potential partner of an heir to the throne were Catholic/Jewish/Muslim/Jehovah's Witness/ Mormon/Sun-worshipper/Buddihst etc; it's just not on the cards to marry them if you want to keep your claim to the throne.

Actually they're allowed marry any religion but catholic. It's written into the act of settlement.

Since the passage of the Act of Settlement, the most senior member of the royal family to have married a Roman Catholic, and thereby been removed from the line of succession, is Prince Michael of Kent, who married Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz in 1978; he was fifteenth in the line of succession at the time of his marriage. The current most senior living descendant of the Electress Sophia who is ineligible to succeed due to the act is George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, the eldest son of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, who married the Roman Catholic Sylvana Palma Tomaselli in 1988; he would now be 25th in the line of succession if he had not lost his place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Settlement_1701

blinding

getz wrote: »

if prince william wanted to marry a catholic girl he could,he would have to give up he right to the british throne,as he could not be head of the church of england and be married out side it,if the pope could marry do you think he would be allowed to marry a protestant,prince william would have to marry her in a protestant church as the catholic church would not allow him to marry her without pre-conditions,now what was that about modern democracy ?i smell another anti-british thread starting up,

Why could William not have his religion and his wife another (in this case catholism)

It sounds a bit Islamic ? ? ? to me. Do you (man or woman) have to convert to islam before you cam marry a muslim. i genuine don't know the answer to this but it sounds like something mad mullahs would be pushing !

blinding

KeithAFC wrote: »

Don't see the problem to be honest. Whats so important about the Catholic religion?

Exactly; So why is the catholic religion specifically verboten ?

KeithAFC

blinding wrote: »

Exactly; So why is the catholic religion specifically verboten ?

Does it matter?

blinding

KeithAFC wrote: »

Does it matter?

If its not such a big deal surely then it would be egalitarian if this law that specifically pro-hibits catholics was removed.

I certainly don't think that it chimes with the modern world that one section of society is separated out and "not one of you " is the message indeed law !

discus

later10 wrote: »

The whole formalised class system in the UK needs to be rooted out. I say that as someone with a deep affinity with Britain, and with a great deal of respect for the British people, but the whole thing is quite daft and not conducive to an open, forward-driven society ruled and represented by its people, for its people, and with its people.

What is an open, forward-driven society, and why is Britain not such a society?

blinding

discus wrote: »

What is an open, forward-driven society, and why is Britain not such a society?

One that does not have a law specifically state's that a member from one section of society is not suitable for a role in somthing as symbolic as the royal family and indeed head of state.

KeithAFC

blinding wrote: »

If its not such a big deal surely then it would be egalitarian if this law that specifically pro-hibits catholics was removed.

I certainly don't think that it chimes with the modern world that one section of society is separated out and "not one of you " is the message indeed law !

Most likely just a tradition they have. I mean, a Protestant can't be pope can he?

Denerick

Will people just give it up. The British monarchy is an anachronism, we all understand that, but the British monarch has no effective power (Despite holding all sorts of lovely constitutional perogatives she chooses never to indulge in)

This is a simple excuse for a chance to 'bash the Brits' and gives Republicans an excuse to oppose the visit of the British head of State on *snigger* principled grounds.

super_furry

Why can't the Pope marry a protestant?

im invisible

Maybe its because its a rule of the catholic church that if you marry outside the religion, you have to promise to bring any children you might have as catholic, (not sure what the rules for other religions would be, just sayin...)

blinding

KeithAFC wrote: »

Most likely just a tradition they have. I mean, a Protestant can't be pope can he?

Dont know the legal nice-ities but I have my doubts.

There surely must be a question with the head of state coming from a family that has to be one religion. Why could the monarch or future marry anyone other than a catholic. It seems a bit nasty to specifically single out the catholics ! ! !

KeithAFC

blinding wrote: »

Dont know the legal nice-ities but I have my doubts.

There surely must be a question with the head of state coming from a family that has to be one religion. Why could the monarch or future marry anyone other than a catholic. It seems a bit nasty to specifically single out the catholics ! ! !

Well lets be honest, it was a catholic man who tried to blow up the houses of parliment and kill the king. But like i said, just a traditional thing you would think.

blinding

Denerick wrote: »

Will people just give it up. The British monarchy is an anachronism, we all understand that, but the British monarch has no effective power (Despite holding all sorts of lovely constitutional perogatives she chooses never to indulge in)

This is a simple excuse for a chance to 'bash the Brits' and gives Republicans an excuse to oppose the visit of the British head of State on *snigger* principled grounds.

You could use that as an excuse for nobody ever questioning anything pertaining to the royal family.

Why would it be such a big deal to "lose " this anti-catholic law in this day and age.

blinding

KeithAFC wrote: »

Well lets be honest, it was a catholic man who tried to blow up the houses of parliment and kill the king. But like i said, just a traditional thing you would think.

It seems a little harsh to hold the actions of one catholic against all catholics in perpetuity ! ! !

Denerick

blinding wrote: »

You could use that as an excuse for nobody ever questioning anything pertaining to the royal family.

Why would it be such a big deal to "lose " this anti-catholic law in this day and age.

Because the Church of England is the established church of the British State. The monarch is the head of the anglican church. You do not make a Catholic the head of the church of England.

Your question is about as sensible as asking why the Roman Catholic church doesn't drop its discriminatory approach to rejecting candidates for the papacy on the basis of their Protestantism or Buddhism.

JustinDee

blinding wrote: »

Why would it be such a big deal to "lose " this anti-catholic law in this day and age.

Because nobody concerned from throne to street actually gives two stuffs and rightly so.

LordSutch

im invisible wrote: »

Maybe its because its a rule of the catholic church that if you marry outside the religion, you have to promise to bring any children you might have as catholic, (not sure what the rules for other religions would be, just sayin...)

That rule ^ no longer exists thank God, it was phased out in the 1970s, but only after it had made many Irish Protestant families 'just dissappear' and become RC overnight! Whole networks of Irish Protestant families are now staunch Roman Catholic families, directly because of the "The Ne Temere decree". It was the perfect ethnic cleansing tool, no death, & no blood, just hand over the children . . . .

getz

blinding wrote: »

Why could William not have his religion and his wife another (in this case catholism)

It sounds a bit Islamic ? ? ? to me. Do you (man or woman) have to convert to islam before you cam marry a muslim. i genuine don't know the answer to this but it sounds like something mad mullahs would be pushing !

the reason that the queen or king is a protestant,is because the catholic church and the kings of the day,started two civil wars in england over religion,the country lost more of its citizens at that time than in the last two wars,the people were sick of it a demanded that the next royals would no longer be run from the vatican,remember catholic church had complete control of europe,and could do anything they wanted,the priests were even burning woman and children at the stake in england for reading the bible in english, the only people who were allowed to read the bible were priests,and you know the reason why cromwell invaded ireland,

blinding

Denerick wrote: »

Because the Church of England is the established church of the British State. The monarch is the head of the anglican church. You do not make a Catholic the head of the church of England.

Your question is about as sensible as asking why the Roman Catholic church doesn't drop its discriminatory approach to rejecting candidates for the papacy on the basis of their Protestantism or Buddhism.

To move things on a bit should a modern inclusive democracy have an established church of the state.

Is the church of England god a class above the other gods. I mean he(?) may have been in the past but what has he done lately.

Also can the monarch or future monarch truly represent all of the people when they have a law that specifically pro-hibits them from marrying a catholic.

LordSutch

blinding wrote: »

Anti-catholism at the heart of the British Royal family

Oh God no, I would say that the modern Royal family is staunchly "Pro-Anglican" more so than "Anti-Roman Catholic".

blinding

JustinDee wrote: »

Because nobody concerned from throne to street actually gives two stuffs and rightly so.

I do and if nobody gives two stuffs why not change it. It will make me happy and surely thats worth doing.

Denerick

blinding wrote: »

To move things on a bit should a modern inclusive democracy have an established church of the state.

Is the church of England god a class above the other gods. I mean he(?) may have been in the past but what has he done lately.

Also can the monarch or future monarch truly represent all of the people when they have a law that specifically pro-hibits them from marrying a catholic.

What in God's name are you actually talking about? Do you understand how little influence the Queen has over either Westminster or Canterbury? Its completely ceremonial.

blinding

LordSutch wrote: »

Oh God no, I would say that the modern Royal family is staunchly "Pro-Anglican" more so than "Anti-Roman Catholic".

Would'nt it be nice to get rid of that nasty little law just to make it clearer for doubters you understand !

blinding

super_furry wrote: »

Why can't the Pope marry a protestant?

I would have no prob with the pope marrying a protestant or anyone else either for that matter.

opinion guy

Thread fail - nobody cares. Take it to boards.co.uk and you might find people who care

gandalf

Who gives a damn. Religion has caused us nothing but grief on this island. Why worry about what the rules are for a figure head of state for another country who in actuality has no real power in that country and definitely no real power in this country bar maybe persuading some of those in their own country to come here as tourists if the visit is a success.

You could also say that hypocrites are those who say they are of one religious persuasion and carry out acts of violence in clear violation of the rules of their religion against another sect of the same type of religion.

Athlone_Bhoy

You couldn't be the PM either if you were catholic. Look at Tony Blair converted to catholicism but only after he left.

getz

blinding wrote: »

To move things on a bit should a modern inclusive democracy have an established church of the state.

Is the church of England god a class above the other gods. I mean he(?) may have been in the past but what has he done lately.

Also can the monarch or future monarch truly represent all of the people when they have a law that specifically pro-hibits them from marrying a catholic.

have you got such a short memory,what happens when a outside state has complete religious control

Dun

LordSutch wrote: »

That rule ^ no longer exists thank God, it was phased out in the 1970s, but only after it had made many Irish Protestant families 'just dissappear' and become RC overnight! Whole networks of Irish Protestant families are now staunch Roman Catholic families, directly because of the "The Ne Temere decree". It was the perfect ethnic cleansing tool, no death, & no blood, just hand over the children . . . .

Ah come on - ethnic cleansing? Who was removed from the country? Also, I don't think anything can be made of that when held up to laws arising from the English Reformation that nominally, then through conformity largely erased the religion from an entire country.

blinding

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

You couldn't be the PM either if you were catholic. Look at Tony Blair converted to catholicism but only after he left.

I am glad that you brought this to our attention. I believe in fact that there is no law (at least not yet;)) pro-hibiting the prime minister from being a catholic but funnily enough there has'nt been one ! that I am aware of (maybe some sort of glass ceiling for catholic politicians).

It would create some constitutional issues because the prime ministers appoints the church of England (is it just England) bishops to their places of influence in the house of Lords and that could be a bit awkward coming from a catholic pm. How would he know if they was good or bad Bish's.

The queen might not laying down the(religious) law to a catholic pm as he/she might tell her the popes the "Daddy".

mossyc123

1st Rule of boards.ie

The Catholic Church/Catholics can never be the victim of discrimination, only the perpetrators.

If the King/Queen has little or no influence on the Church of England why not allow him/her to be a Catholic.

Anachronistic and silly law, should be changed even if only for appearances sake.

blinding

getz wrote: »

have you got such a short memory,what happens when a outside state has complete religious control

If you are talking about the catholic church having too much control in Ireland post semi-independence they you are damn right. They were a bunch of idiots and the politicians even a bigger bunch of idiots to let them get away with it.

but thats no reason to have the church of England having too big a say in Britain. Specific laws that prohibit the monarch from marrying a catholic has no place in this day and age. If every body else is okay why not a catholic.

I am not too fond of those protestant bishops having their special priveldeged lounge seats in the house of Lords either. They are riding high on the hog over there and need some watching just like the catholic church needing watching in Ireland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

blinding

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But sure catholics and protestants are getting on much better these days and there is no need to rub the catholics nose in the dirt. Let bygones be bygones I say and lets get rid of that extra special law that specifically singles out catholics for "special" treatment !

getz

blinding wrote: »

I am glad that you brought this to our attention. I believe in fact that there is no law (at least not yet;)) pro-hibiting the prime minister from being a catholic but funnily enough there has'nt been one ! that I am aware of (maybe some sort of glass ceiling for catholic politicians).

It would create some constitutional issues because the prime ministers appoints the church of England (is it just England) bishops to their places of influence in the house of Lords and that could be a bit awkward coming from a catholic pm. How would he know if they was good or bad Bish's.

The queen might not laying down the(religious) law to a catholic pm as he/she might tell her the popes the "Daddy".

there is no law against the prime minister being catholic,but it would be akward in the part of the prime ministers role is appointing senior members of the church of england,under the act of 1829 were the prime minister to be a roman catholic or a jew ,a alternate system of ecclesiatical appointment would have to be devised,disraeli born a jew,tony blair waited untill he stood down,gorden brown is not church of england he is church of scotland,

irishh_bob

KeithAFC wrote: »

Don't see the problem to be honest. Whats so important about the Catholic religion?

if the next in line to the throne was only allowed marry a catholic , your ( faulty ) question might make sense but the fact of the matter is that the catholic faith is singled out for exclusion in this instance and their lies the problem

ps , i myself am non religous

irishh_bob

Denerick wrote: »

Because the Church of England is the established church of the British State. The monarch is the head of the anglican church. You do not make a Catholic the head of the church of England.

Your question is about as sensible as asking why the Roman Catholic church doesn't drop its discriminatory approach to rejecting candidates for the papacy on the basis of their Protestantism or Buddhism.

then how come the ban does not extend to muslims , jews or other world religons ?

Dozen Wicked Words

irishh_bob wrote: »

then how come the ban does not extend to muslims , jews or other world religons ?

See Post 41. An act from a time when Catholics were enemy number one in Englands ruling classes eyes.

JustinDee

blinding wrote: »

I do and if nobody gives two stuffs why not change it. It will make me happy and surely thats worth doing.

Unless you're British, its actually none of your business. In fact, why is it even in the Politics forum in the first place?

irishh_bob

dooferoaks wrote: »

See Post 41. An act from a time when Catholics were enemy number one in Englands ruling classes eyes.

altogether spurious

later12

Athlone_Bhoy wrote: »

You couldn't be the PM either if you were catholic.

This is little more than a myth. Certainly it might make some clerical appointments in the name of the monarch slightly awkward, but there is no legal bar on Catholics in this respect.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

JustinDee wrote: »

Unless you're British, its actually none of your business. In fact, why is it even in the Politics forum in the first place?

Given our very close political, geographic and economic relations with Britain, it's quite likely that many of us were, are, or have been British taxpayers if not British citizens, or subjects, as the case may be. If you don't like it, I'm sure you're not being compelled to respond.