Ban on British Monarchy marrying Catholics removed.

woodoo

A ban on the British Monarchy marrying a Catholic has been removed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054467/Prince-William-Kate-Middletons-child-throne--girl.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607

So it looks like William and Kate's child may marry a catholic but are not likely to raise their child as one as future monarchs will be Anglicans and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Its a step in the right direction i suppose. It officially removes anti-Catholicism from the British state.

ItsAWindUp

Hopefully to be soon followed with the abolition of the monarchy.

AngryLips

This is not progressive in the slightest. Bringing in modern rules to archaic institutions is a poor man's idea of progress.

Batsy

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Hopefully to be soon followed with the abolition of the monarchy.

Hopefully it won't be followed by the abolition of the monarchy. Hopefully the day in which Britain gets a politician as its Head of State won't be occurring for many centuries to come.

super_furry

Oh dear, time to watch some heads exploding with rage over on pulseresources.org.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

Hopefully it won't be followed by the abolition of the monarchy. Hopefully the day in which Britain gets a politician as its Head of State won't be occurring for many centuries to come.

Yes, God forbid the British electing their Head of State.

KeithAFC

Long to reign over us. The monarchy will be around for a long time to come.

dulpit

Seems a good move in the right direction.. Personally the pomp and ceremony/etc of a royal family is something that would appeal to me, it seems quite fun

Monty Burnz

KeithAFC wrote: »

Long to reign over us. The monarchy will be around for a long time to come.

I always found the idea of wanting to cast yourself below someone else due to an accident of birth a bit odd. But as far as I'm concerned, Britain can appoint a cat as their head of state if they see fit, it's not really for us to complain about.

SillyMcCarthy

woodoo wrote: »

A ban on the British Monarchy marrying a Catholic has been removed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054467/Prince-William-Kate-Middletons-child-throne--girl.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15492607

So it looks like William and Kate's child may marry a catholic but are not likely to raise their child as one as future monarchs will be Anglicans and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Its a step in the right direction i suppose. It officially removes anti-Catholicism from the British state.

To be honest, I think too much of an issue is made out of it.
If I were a non catholic english citizen I think that I would
want my monarch to marry within the faith & raise all future
royalty as such. They might 'remove the ban' but I reckon
it will be much the same for a long long time to come.

ItsAWindUp

More fool anybody who would want to marry somebody as absolutely boring as a member of the royal family anyone.

caseyann

KeithAFC wrote: »

Long to reign over us. The monarchy will be around for a long time to come.

How do you feel about the new rules?:)

Does that mean they can marry someone of any religion now?

Manach

Given the last non-monarchist head of State in England was Cromwell, all things considered let that tradition continue.

Batsy

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Yes, God forbid the British electing their Head of State.

The British don't want to elect their Head of State. They are happy with the way things are. And electing a mere figurehead is completely pointless.

ItsAWindUp

caseyann wrote: »

How do you feel about the new rules?:)

Does that mean they can marry someone of any religion now?

Ha, not likely. Imagine if one of them tried to marry a Muslim!

caseyann

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

More fool anybody who would want to marry somebody as absolutely boring as a member of the royal family anyone.

You wouldnt be saying that when you get free designer wear,food rent,transport ,bills and house and holidays.And vip into any place in world.:p

amacachi

KeithAFC wrote: »

Long to reign over us. The monarchy will be around for a long time to come.

I love how so many in the UK are happy for a German to rule over them due to birth but aren't happy to share any power with Germany in a European political framework.

ItsAWindUp

Batsy wrote: »

The British don't want to elect their Head of State. They are happy with the way things are. And electing a mere figurehead is completely pointless.

Who says? And having a whole family of unelected figureheads seems a stupid to me.

KeithAFC

caseyann wrote: »

How do you feel about the new rules?:)

Does that mean they can marry someone of any religion now?

It isn't for me to decide but I think this will not change much. Hopefully they can carry on as normal. If it gets more Catholics to be loyal to the crown, then good news.

ItsAWindUp

caseyann wrote: »

You wouldnt be saying that when you get free designer wear,food rent,transport ,bills and house and holidays.And vip into any place in world.:p

Yeah but you'd still produce offspring related to Charles:p

paddyandy

This is a pc move and has little significance otherwise.It has more to do with reshaping the image to suit current trends.

Monty Burnz

KeithAFC wrote: »

It isn't for me to decide but I think this will not change much. Hopefully they can carry on as normal. If it gets more Catholics to be loyal to the crown, then good news.

What is more important, loyalty to the country or loyalty to the Queen of England?

And how would loyalty to the queen manifest itself exactly? (loyalty to the country is pretty easy to understand)

listermint

KeithAFC wrote: »

It isn't for me to decide but I think this will not change much. Hopefully they can carry on as normal. If it gets more Catholics to be loyal to the crown, then good news.

What is this Loyality you speak of ? Are these people your family ?

Monty Burnz

Batsy wrote: »

The British don't want to elect their Head of State. They are happy with the way things are. And electing a mere figurehead is completely pointless.

Whereas inheriting a figurehead from Germany and keeping their children in the role forever makes lots of sense...

KeithAFC

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What is more important, loyalty to the country or loyalty to the Queen of England?

And how would loyalty to the queen manifest itself exactly? (loyalty to the country is pretty easy to understand)

Queen/King and then country and then family.

amacachi

KeithAFC wrote: »

Queen/King and then country and then family.

That is such a sad thing to hear, it really is.

ItsAWindUp

I really do pity people who feel a sense of loyalty to the British monarchy, I mean why?

Monty Burnz

KeithAFC wrote: »

Queen/King and then country and then family.

And how does this loyalty to the queen/king manifest itself?

Based on your ranking, you are saying that in a hypothetical situation (and this is going to be a bit silly, so bear with me) whereby the British Royal family wanted to enslave the British people by betraying them to the Germans, you would help them?

Happyman42

I can't imagine bringing my children up to 'doff the hat' and curtsey. It's 2011 and this move, that should've been done and dusted in the 1800's, is being lauded as 'progressive' by her subjects. Kyst almighty!:eek:

caseyann

KeithAFC wrote: »

It isn't for me to decide but I think this will not change much. Hopefully they can carry on as normal. If it gets more Catholics to be loyal to the crown, then good news.

I dont understand that part? Could be a African catholic or a Arab catholic? What difference will that bring to have more Catholics loyal to the crown?

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Yeah but you'd still produce offspring related to Charles:p

I wonder will his looks keep getting cleansed.:D:D

getz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

And how does this loyalty to the queen/king manifest itself?

Based on your ranking, you are saying that in a hypothetical situation (and this is going to be a bit silly, so bear with me) whereby the British Royal family wanted to enslave the British people by betraying them to the Germans, you would help them?

the royal family is constant,unlike goverments that come and go,many of them corrupt and greedy,

AngryLips

Batsy wrote: »

The British don't want to elect their Head of State. They are happy with the way things are. And electing a mere figurehead is completely pointless.

Are you alluding to yesterday's elections here in our own republic?

KeithAFC

And how does this loyalty to the queen/king manifest itself?

Based on your ranking, you are saying that in a hypothetical situation (and this is going to be a bit silly, so bear with me) whereby the British Royal family wanted to enslave the British people by betraying them to the Germans, you would help them?

That would be a very unlikely case and would be a bit wrong to speculate on that.

I dont understand that part? Could be a African catholic or a Arab catholic? What difference will that bring to have more Catholics loyal to the crown?

If it attracts more people from that faith to become royalists, that is good news in my opinion.

Son Of A Vidic

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

Hopefully to be soon followed with the abolition of the monarchy.

That will never happen and mainly for financial reasons. The pomp and ceremony is a huge money spinner and tourist attraction for them. Having lived in London for 8 years, seeing the crowds the Royal sites would attract was unbelievable.

amacachi

getz wrote: »

the royal family is constant,unlike goverments that come and go,many of them corrupt and greedy,

Yeah, there's never been any suggestions of members of the UK Royal Family using the office to get an advantage in their business dealings.

ItsAWindUp

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

That will never happen and mainly for financial reasons. The pomp and ceremony is a huge money spinner and tourist attraction for them. Having lived in London for 8 years, seeing the crowds the Royal sites would attract was unbelievable.

See, I just don't believe this argument. You could easily keep the same tourist levels and abolish the Royal Family.

Monty Burnz

getz wrote: »

the royal family is constant,unlike goverments that come and go,many of them corrupt and greedy,

The family may be constant, but the members die one by one. And of course I don't see how you have any reason to think that those in the royal family are not (or will not be) corrupt and greedy - 90% of history the story of such royals. And if they are, you are stuck with them for life (unless you assassinate them of course).

caseyann

KeithAFC wrote: »

If it attracts more people from that faith to become royalists, that is good news in my opinion.

But why would you care,whats the importance of it? I dont think people will be royalists just because they lifted the ban on catholic marriages.
I dont think people are royalists because of their religion.
Isnt there already loads of catholic British who are royalists?

dlofnep

KeithAFC wrote: »

If it attracts more people from that faith to become royalists, that is good news in my opinion.

Why is it a good thing? Other than the fact, you're a loyalist who has to espouse such ridiculous views to try assert your 'Britishness'. If the Union Flag in your signature wasn't enough of a stamp of your identity.

Tell me what benefit it is for someone to swear loyalty to an unelected Monarch, rather than to give one's backing to their country instead.

KeithAFC

caseyann wrote: »

But why would you care,whats the importance of it? I dont think people will be royalists just because they lifted the ban on catholic marriages.
I dont think people are royalists because of their religion.
Isnt there already loads of catholic British who are royalists?

But I am talking about Ulster. If it attracts more Catholics in Ulster to the Royal family, then good news. The whole link to the Monarchy and their faith and the United Kingdom could only be a good thing.

lugha

super_furry wrote: »

Oh dear, time to watch some heads exploding with rage over on pulseresources.org.

Never mind them lads. The republican crew from this parish will be far more miffed. One of their favorite sticks for beating the sectarian British has been taken away from them. :pac:

Imagine, with us still with our oath, the Brits are possibly more progressive than us with regards to head of state and religion. :P

caseyann

dlofnep wrote: »

Why is it a good thing? Other than the fact, you're a loyalist who has to espouse such ridiculous views to try assert your 'Britishness'. If the Union Flag in your signature wasn't enough of a stamp of your identity.

Tell me what benefit it is for someone to swear loyalty to an unelected Monarch, rather than to give one's backing to their country instead.

I can not even see that

Family first country second,and nothing else after that.

Monty Burnz

amacachi wrote: »

Yeah, there's never been any suggestions of members of the UK Royal Family using the office to get an advantage in their business dealings.

Oh yeah?

In May 2010, Sarah was filmed by News of the World offering access to Prince Andrew for £500,000 by Mazher Mahmood, an undercover reporter posing as an Indian businessman.[27] On the video made as a documentary source for the story, which is publicly available, Sarah is heard to say that "£500,000 when you can, to me, open doors".[28] She is seen taking away a briefcase containing US$40,000 in cash. Exposure surrounding the incident increased Sarah's public profile and notoriety. For instance, Sterling Publishers substantially increased the print run of Ashley Learns About Strangers, the Duchess's latest book for children; however, the notoriety did not translate into additional book sales.[29][30] Sarah excused her behaviour in an interview with Oprah Winfrey by saying that that she had been drinking prior to soliciting the cash, and was "in the gutter at that moment".[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah,_Duchess_of_York#Cash_for_Access

The Duke of York is to step down as the UK trade envoy, the BBC understands, ending a controversial period in the role.

Prince Andrew's suitability as the UK special representative for trade and investment has been criticised throughout his ten years in the role.

Most recently - in March 2011 - he came in for a steady stream of criticism over his friendship with US tycoon Jeffrey Epstein, who was jailed for sex offences. There were even calls for him to step down then.

But it was not the first time questions were raised about Prince Andrew's judgement.

Questions have been raised over the prince's suitability by such issues as lunching at Buckingham Palace with a "notorious" member of the former Tunisian regime, to taking a holiday with a Libyan gun smuggler, to claims he used an official trip to try to find a buyer for his home in the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12663378

That's just what has leaked out about the current generation. God knows what happened but was never investigated before the press started to report freely on them.

Monty Burnz

KeithAFC wrote: »

But I am talking about Ulster. If it attracts more Catholics in Ulster to the Royal family, then good news. The whole link to the Monarchy and their faith and the United Kingdom could only be a good thing.

Keith, would you mind addressing my hypothetical king/queen versus the people of England scenario?

Monty Burnz

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

See, I just don't believe this argument. You could easily keep the same tourist levels and abolish the Royal Family.

How? How can you replace the PR you get from the royals, and the fact that they are a living tourist attraction? Who wants to see empty palaces where nobody lives anymore?

KeithAFC

dlofnep wrote: »

Why is it a good thing? Other than the fact, you're a loyalist who has to espouse such ridiculous views to try assert your 'Britishness'. If the Union Flag in your signature wasn't enough of a stamp of your identity.

Tell me what benefit it is for someone to swear loyalty to an unelected Monarch, rather than to give one's backing to their country instead.

A British person who is loyal to the Monarchy is no shock. I love what they do for the world and Prince Charles does a lot of good work for young people in society.

They are less corrupt than many head of states currently in the world and less chance of getting a Sean Gallagher type character being King.

ItsAWindUp

Monty Burnz wrote: »

How? How can you replace the PR you get from the royals, and the fact that they are a living tourist attraction? Who wants to see empty palaces where nobody lives anymore?

It's not the royals people come to see, it's the palaces and all their treasures. It's not like you stand at the top of the Eiffel Tower, look out at the brilliant views, and say "Yeah, it's impressive, but if only there was a monarchy for me to admire".

amacachi

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Oh yeah?

That was my point.

Monty Burnz

amacachi wrote: »

That was my point.

Oh, ok. Happy to do the spadework for you. :pac:

ItsAWindUp

KeithAFC wrote: »

A British person who is loyal to the Monarchy is no shock. I love what they do for the world and Prince Charles does a lot of good work for young people in society.

They are less corrupt than many head of states currently in the world and less chance of getting a Sean Gallagher type character being King.

Yes, the British monarchy and that whole imperialistic system has done wonders for the world:rolleyes: What does Charles do for the youth out of interest?

getz

some think we just have a royal family, just upset the irish,they are obessed with them, more so than the british, if i did not know better i think they are jealous.