Posted on 04/24/2011 4:00:35 PM PDT by Steelfish
Church Blocks Reforms Over Royal Marriages The Church of England has blocked a Government move to scrap a centuries-old law which prevents members of the Royal family from marrying Roman Catholics, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.
If the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, they would ultimately be answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican. 24 Apr 2011
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, began work towards repealing the 1701 Act of Settlement, under which heirs to the throne must renounce their claim on marrying a Roman Catholic, in order to introduce full equality between the faiths. Talks were held with the Anglican Church as part of wider discussions on constitutional reform, which come under his remit as Deputy Prime Minister.
The reforms have also led to steps being made towards securing the agreement of the Commonwealth to end the common law principle of male primogeniture, under which the younger sons of royalty have precedence over their older sisters. However, the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.
Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith. This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican. There is no similar prohibition on the Royal family marrying members of other faiths such as Islam and Judaism, or those who are openly agnostic or atheist.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
I figured it was the Bourbon King of Spain they were worried about. Oh, wait, there really is a Bourbon King of Spain. My bad. :-0
There are no Bourbon kings any more...
Not the issue here. Note:
"...and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader,"As Muslims, who would be the "separate sovereign leader" to whom they're answerable?
Juan Carlos of Spain.
I’m talking about “republicans” in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. in the present day. Each time the subject comes up, it’s left wingers pushing it. When voted on (Australia 1999, St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2010), it’s left wingers who vote for it, and they lost both times.
Adultery was the foundation of that church, so who cares.
The article never mentions Islam or Muslims.
Yes, presumably a Muslim consort demanding that the children be raised as Muslims would violate the spirit of the Act. (And hence falls in line with conspiracy theories about the U.K. intelligence community somehow being involved with the death of the late Princess of Wales.)
The real question is separation of church and state. If you insist upon conflating the monarchy to the leadership of the Anglican church, then this problem is unsurmountable. Indeed, how can an atheist or a member of any faith other than Anglican Christianity truly carry out the duties of king or queen?
I think that the monarchy is doomed in the long run anyway. I used to support the idea of the British monarchy (even as an American) for being suited to the nation. But I now believe that monarchism is simply too anachronistic to survive.
The article never mentions Islam or Muslims.
Yes, presumably a Muslim consort demanding that the children be raised as Muslims would violate the spirit of the Act. (And hence falls in line with conspiracy theories about the U.K. intelligence community somehow being involved with the death of the late Princess of Wales.)
The real question is separation of church and state. If you insist upon conflating the monarchy to the leadership of the Anglican church, then this problem is unsurmountable. Indeed, how can an atheist or a member of any faith other than Anglican Christianity truly carry out the duties of king or queen?
I think that the monarchy is doomed in the long run anyway. I used to support the idea of the British monarchy (even as an American) for being suited to the nation. But I now believe that monarchism is simply too anachronistic to survive.
Paragraph 5: "There is no similar prohibition on the Royal family marrying members of other faiths such as Islam and Judaism, or those who are openly agnostic or atheist."
Or at least not any more.
He is not a direct descendant of the Bourbon kings just has their blood...
a descendant of a sibling or cousin...
The direct line died out...
Yet when Pope Benedict XVI came to Britain last fall to beautified John Henry Neuuman, he was very much well recieved. So that could very much be changing slowly. Also it go away a bit quicker now that there is the “Anglican Rite Usage” as a part of the RC Church.
The next King of France will bear the title of "Sultan" or "Ayatollah."
The subject just came up again, and I’m no socialist.
“There are no Bourbon kings any more...”
I’m a Kentucky Bourbon king. I’m holding court right now.
Odd, I seem to have a splash here in my French cut glass goblet. Go figure.
Dang you are right— But this idea, of course, makes no sense.
Yes, I’m hoping it will change. There’s a long history of anti-Catholicism in England, dating back to the Reformation, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, the defeat of the Stuart rebellions, and the colonization of Ireland, to mention just a few of the rough spots.
In the late 1600s...1680-12700 many Huguenots fled from France to Ireland..
From there many came to the US but a lot stayed..
They were given help by the English government because they were Protestants...
and lived in the nicer areas of Dublin etc
About 1706-10 thousands of Palatine Germans were allowed to flee into England
Queen Anne only allowed the Lutherans to stay and sent the Catholics back...
Then when there were at least 10,000 Germans living in the streets and parks and private lawns of London she started sending them elsewhere...
Besides sending 3000 of the Lutheran Palatine Germans to Albany, NY
she also sent about the same number to Ireland...
Later many left Ireland for Canada...
But still today there are many Irish with German ancestors or French Huguenot ancestors...
Brits are so inbred, they have gone nuts altogether!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.