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 ...
Brits are so inbred, they have gone nuts altogether!
The Royals are a bunch of clowns! As a Roman Catholic, I think the Pope should set down an edict that any RC stupid enough to get involved with these Euro-trash Royal gangsters should be ex-communicated.
I`m Henry the Eighth I am,
I can marry 8 muslim virgins,
Hot Dam!
For that matter, the Brits even agreed to have German kings, rather than risk having a Catholic ruler. The House of Hanover, still on the throne today.
Henry VIII created the church so he could rule on his marriages, as he went through all them wihtout bothering with the Pope. Protestantism in a purer form was reinforced during the reign of his son Edward VI and during the reign of Mary “Bloody” Tudor there was a reestablishment of Catholicism, but, after the burnings the nation balked at it and Elizabeth I permanently restored Protestantism as it had been meant ot be under her father, one of religious and political compromise. It was done because back then, being a Catholic meant using legal means to enforce the established religion and also meant being able to burn people alive for the slightest lack fo deference to the Host. It hasn’t made anyone happy, as it made both Catholics and Protestants unhappy since it was basically a religious balancing act. It was after the Restoration (reign of Charles the Second) that the Stuarts were suspected of being closet Catholics and James II was tossed off because of his Catholicism and William of Orange and Mary (daughter of James II interestingly) were instated by Parliament in the “Glorious Revolution.” Then an act was created banning Catholics from the Throne permanently and anyone who married a Catholic became banned from the succession. These days, it’s more likely that a Muslim will end up burning people alive for heresy instead of a Catholic. The Church of England was created initially so a monarch could have full say in who was and wasn’t legally married and which heirs were and weren’t legitimate. Then it just became a church for Protestants and a means of declaring and enforcing England’s independence from Papal interference. It has had nothing to do with teh French monarchs claiming the British throne. It was created for the convenience of Henry VIII when he was ruling on all of his marriages and the legal status of his children.
Interestingly, while the Monarch was William of Orange, his wife had joint monarch status in her own right, since Queen Mary was the daughter of the overthrown James II. If she had not married William of Orange, Mary would have been Queen of England on her own since Britain does not have Salic Law.
” 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.”
What made you change your mind?
Are marriages between a Protestant and a Catholic recognized by the Roman Catholic Church; what if performed by Protestant clergy, in a Protestant church? Just asking, I don’t know.Yes, not encouraged, but yes.
Really? Why?
Bush's fault.
Sorry.
Had to do it.
:-)
It started with the antics of the younger members of the House of Windsor. Then there is the sheer cost of the monarchy. And then there is the changing nature and culture of the United Kingdom.
Monarchism assumes that the state is embodied in the sovereign. And in some sense, the royal family has to maintain some semblence (or illusion) of being above the common folk. The younger Windsors fail on the second count. And then one must ask whether or not a cash strapped Britain should pay for the trappings of a monarchy. And how about the changing demographics?
Well, with more traditional Anglicans “coming home to Rome”, not just indiviuals, but even whole faith communites, soon the Pope will assume leadership again.
Well slowly, that is fading, and with a very tradition-minded Pope at the helm, I do have hope it will eased.
A nation of over 60 million people is inbred?...
Uh-huh.
The Hanoverians however gained the throne as they were the nearest line of the (Protestant) Stuart family. George I’s grandmother was Princess Elizabeth, the Scottish daughter of the Scottish king James VI who of course became king of England and Ireland in 1603, better known as James I. In other words, the ‘Germans’ are on the throne because of their Scottish lineage.
The German ancestry of the Royals is overdone. The Stuart ancestry of the Hanoverians is generally forgotten today or simply unknown to the general public.
If the Moslem fundamentalists get their way and reestablish the Caliphate, it would be the Caliph. And I love how the old "dual loyalty" argument rears its ugly head again here. We've never recovered here from JFK's subserviance to the Papal Antichrist here in the US, have we? Actually, if his relatives are anything to go by, the Catholic religion sits rather too lightly on the Kennedy family...
And in any event, even if there is no Caliph, the Muslim religion’s tenets state that Shariah should be the law of the state, so there is most definitely a sovereignty issue relating to a Moslem ruler.
Yes, true, there is some Scottish lineage there—as there was earlier with William of Orange and Mary. But the operative word is “Protestant.” The Whig aristocracy who ran the country at that time wanted a Protestant, no matter how far they had to stretch to find one.
It is true most republicans in the UK are left wing socialists but not all. This is from historical reasons the people on the left wanted change but people on right were people who supported the establishment and wanted things to remain the same.
But establishment becoming much more left wing itself.
I am a republican and have center right views. I cannot see how the UK can ever be a proper democratic meritocracy with the monarchy existing. The monarchy leads to a class based society with an upper class with a sense of entitlement. This leads to a left wing paternalistic society model. Who after all can be more left wing than greeny Prince Charles.
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... 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.
Yes. One of my sons was married in a Presbyterian Church -- jointly -- by a Presbyterian minister and a Catholic priest. Knoxville, TN in 1988.
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.