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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Oath of Abjuration

  • 27-01-2016 11:55pm
    #1
    tabbey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭


    During the Penal Law era in Ireland, RC priests, public officials and some others were required to take an oath of abjuration.
    Who, and in what circumstances, were required to take the oath?, and when did this end?.


Comments

  • #2
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    tabbey wrote: »
    During the Penal Law era in Ireland, RC priests, public officials and some others were required to take an oath of abjuration.
    Who, and in what circumstances, were required to take the oath?, and when did this end?.

    Complicated. See Lord Chancellor's speech introducing the 1844 Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Act
    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1844/jul/30/roman-catholic-penal-acts-repeal#S3V0076P0_18440730_HOL_10


  • #3
    tabbey
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,943 ✭✭✭tabbey


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    Complicated. See Lord Chancellor's speech introducing the 1844 Roman Catholic Penal Acts Repeal Act
    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1844/jul/30/roman-catholic-penal-acts-repeal#S3V0076P0_18440730_HOL_10

    Thank you,
    I never realised it continued so long.
    The comments of some of the lords seem quite politically incorrect , by our standards.


  • #4
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    tabbey wrote: »
    Thank you,
    The comments of some of the lords seem quite politically incorrect , by our standards.

    Ha ha.
    It was decades after this that a British prime minister (Salisbury ?) famously declared that the Irish were akin to the Hottentots, and entirely unsuited to Home Rule. Or take a look at the arguments put forward in many of the British Parliamentary debates on Home Rule, etc, from 1911-1922.


  • #5
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    tabbey wrote: »
    Thank you,
    I never realised it continued so long.

    Actually, it continued in Ireland until the very last full year of British rule - 1921. It was only with the 1921 Government of Ireland Act that the position of Viceroy or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was opened to Catholics.

    In Britain, it persists to today. The British monarch cannot be Catholic, while the Lord Chancellorship (of GB) was only opened to Catholics in 1974, though one has yet to be appointed (AFAIK), and one notes that there has similarly never been a Catholic prime minister.


  • #6
    Ascendant
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 196 ✭✭Ascendant


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    one notes that there has similarly never been a Catholic prime minister.

    One could make the case of Tony Blair: wife Catholic, kids raised as Catholics and he himself officially converted.

    Mind you, he waited 'til after he had left power but then, New Labour did not do God, as Alastair Campbell declared.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    Actually, it continued in Ireland until the very last full year of British rule - 1921. It was only with the 1921 Government of Ireland Act that the position of Viceroy or Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was opened to Catholics.

    In Britain, it persists to today. The British monarch cannot be Catholic, while the Lord Chancellorship (of GB) was only opened to Catholics in 1974, though one has yet to be appointed (AFAIK), and one notes that there has similarly never been a Catholic prime minister.

    You are mixing the penal laws with the act of settlement, two different (but not unconnected) things.


  • #8
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    You are mixing the penal laws with the act of settlement, two different (but not unconnected) things.

    If you refer to the "oath of abjuration," then that could be intended to strictly refer to the Stuarts. However, the central point of most of the various penal oaths was to require abjuration of the beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic church. Consequently, I would contend that a reference to "abjuration" or "oaths of abjuration" in the Irish context is more likely to refer to the entirety of the penal laws, as opposed to just those associated with the Acts of Settlement.


  • #9
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    If you refer to the "oath of abjuration," then that could be intended to strictly refer to the Stuarts. However, the central point of most of the various penal oaths was to require abjuration of the beliefs and doctrines of the Catholic church. Consequently, I would contend that a reference to "abjuration" or "oaths of abjuration" in the Irish context is more likely to refer to the entirety of the penal laws, as opposed to just those associated with the Acts of Settlement.

    I was referring to the British monarch. The act covering succession to the throne is very seperate from the penal laws.


  • #10
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    I was referring to the British monarch. The act covering succession to the throne is very seperate from the penal laws.

    Can't see how you can argue that. Some of the harshest and most famous of the penal laws were enacted in the wake of the Act of Settlement, precisely to buttress that "settlement" (supposedly).


  • #11
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    Can't see how you can argue that. Some of the harshest and most famous of the penal laws were enacted in the wake of the Act of Settlement, precisely to buttress that "settlement" (supposedly).

    Not really. The act of settlement was enacted so that parliament could control the monarch.

    The penal laws came in to being, so that Catholics could not challenge the authority of he established church.

    Seperate in their intended targets, but similar I guess in that their objective was protestant supremacy.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Not really. The act of settlement was enacted so that parliament could control the monarch.

    The penal laws came in to being, so that Catholics could not challenge the authority of he established church.

    Seperate in their intended targets, but similar I guess in that their objective was protestant supremacy.

    I agree much more with what you say at the end, as compared with what you say at the start! The Act of Settlement introduced the requirement that the monarch could not be Catholic - I view that as an extension of penal law enactments to the monarchy itself. The various penal acts and requirements were all different facets of what was intended to be a unified scheme to entrench the Protestant supremacy. If you look at the speech made by the Bishop of London during the 1844 House of Lords debate (which I previously referenced), you will see that that point - that the various acts were all intertwined as part of one scheme - is actually one of his central arguments.


  • #13
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    i agree much more with what you say at the end, as compared with the start! The Act of Settlement introduced the requirement that the monarch could not be Catholic - I view that as simply an extension of penal law enactments to the monarchy itself. The various penal acts and requirements were all different facets of what was intended to be a unified scheme to entrench the Protestant supremacy. If you look at the speech made by the Bishop of London during the 1844 House of Lords debate (which I previously referenced), you will see that that point - that the various acts were all intertwined as part of one scheme - is actually one of his central arguments.

    The act of settlement introduced much more than just preventing the monarch from being, or marrying, a Catholic.

    It was I guess a progression of the bill of rights and essentially parliament stating, once and for all, that the church of England has supremacy, this can not be questioned and any future monarch has to follow our rules or face the consequences.


    Incidentally, to correc your earlier point, it doesn't continue to this day, it was repealed in 2015.


  • #14
    The Chieftain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 298 ✭✭The Chieftain


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    The act of settlement introduced much more than just preventing the monarch from being, or marrying, a Catholic.

    I have not, and don't dispute that.


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Incidentally, to correc your earlier point, it doesn't continue to this day, it was repealed in 2015.

    What I stated is correct. The innovation in the various recent succession acts is to enable those who married Catholics to remain part of the official line of succession. But the prohibition on Catholics themselves remains - it remains true that the monarch can't be Catholic. See the following about the Australian implementation Act - "The provision of the Act of Settlement requiring the monarch to be a Protestant continues."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2015#Marriage_to_Roman_Catholics


  • #15
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    The Chieftain wrote: »
    What I stated is correct. The innovation in the various recent succession acts is to enable those who married Catholics to remain part of the official line of succession. But the prohibition on Catholics themselves remains - it remains true that the monarch can't be Catholic. See the following about the Australian implementation Act - "The provision of the Act of Settlement requiring the monarch to be a Protestant continues."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Succession_to_the_Crown_Act_2015#Marriage_to_Roman_Catholics

    I stand corrected. The monarch is head of the church of England and that requirement remains. I presume this is interpreted differently in each of the realms.

    But to go back to my initial point, this is all separate to the penal laws.


Advertisement