Posted on 04/27/2013 6:58:41 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
Catholic Church officials in Great Britain have reportedly assured lawmakers that Catholics who marry into the royal family would not be expected to raise their children in the Catholic faith.
During debate in the House of Lords on proposed changes in the Act of Settlement—the law that bars Catholics from the line of succession to the crown—Lord Wallace of Tankerness reported that he had been assured Catholics marrying a member of the royal family would not be held to the usual requirement that their children be raised as Catholics. Citing the general secretary of the bishops’ conference of England and Wales, Lord Wallace said:
I have the specific consent of Msgr. Stock to say that he was speaking on behalf of Archbishop Nichols as president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales and can inform the House that the view taken by the Catholic Church in England and Wales is that, in the instance of mixed marriages, the approach of the Catholic Church is pastoral.“Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law,” Lord Wallace explained. He indicated that he had been assured that for the Catholic spouse of a member of the royal family, it would be regarded as “impossible” to raise a Catholic child.
Thanks, I was about to go root around in the tool box ... :-)
De Rais only had one. His line is long extinct.
Anne Pot was born to Marie de Villiers, who was not the daughter of de Rais but of Guy de Nesle and Jeanne de Bruyere.
The records from France from 1380 to 1440 are as reliable as any from the period - what more accurate sources do you have than the available ones?
There is zero evidence that the Montmorencies descend from de Rais, which makes sense since that family can trace itself back to a knightly ancestor from 843.
Everything in your post is false.
Louis XII, Louis VII, King John.
It was not unusual for a monarch to be granted an annulment
“And obviously, I was spreaking about a civilized western nation, so your reference to Saudi Arabia is pointless.”
Obviously you didn’t make your point. Monarchs today are mere figureheads with significant role in governance.
European countries with such figureheads are cesspools of socialism. Of course, we are too nowadays.
No, if you want the full experience of a monarchy, I stand behind my suggestion of moving to Saudi Arabia. You might get your wife or daughter (if you have either) to go with you to remind you occasionally of how pleased they are with your desire to live under a true monarch.
No civilized nation lives under a monarchy.
Look up the dissolution of the monasteries. This happened during the reign of Henry VIII - he stripped all of them because he was short money.
Talk about a wealth tax targetting only Catholics - that’s exactly what Henry VIII did. Then he passed the Act of Supremacy stating that his Catholic subjects had to declare him the head of the Church or face execution. That’s what he ended up doing to Thomas More - one of his loyal subjects.
Then Elizabeth continued his policies and attempted to exterminate the entire heirarchy. She succeeded. It took another 250 just to restore it after she had all the bishops killed or exiled.
Yes - it was a civil war - but the Loyal Catholics did not start it. They merely fought to keep what they had always had, the ability to worship and receive the sacraments.
If you think that the pope was in favor of the divine right of kings, think again. It was Henry VIII and the rest of the Tudors, who despoiled the Church, and killed dissidents right and left, whether Jesuits or Baptists. Indeed, it was the jesuits who favored tyrannicide, and Guy Fawkes, who took steps to blow up king, bishops, and Lords altogether.
“Yes - it was a civil war - but the Loyal Catholics did not start it. They merely fought to keep what they had always had, the ability to worship and receive the sacraments.”
Again, you are resurrecting old tribal feuds, and from a time when Rome was a political and religious center and all the intrigue that surrounds that sort of power.
That’s the first issue you should deal with. The Catholic church of Henry VIII’s day is different today.
They wanted England overrun. Henry responded by destroying his enemies institutions and taking his assets. Meeting every standard of plunder and pillage of the day.
What you seem to be angling for is renewal of religious disputes that simply do not exist anymore. The Rome of Henry’s day doesn’t exist anymore. The concept of an independent nation-state is not in dispute.
Even dumber is what we let the politicians do in D.C.
“as reliable as any” is a complete copout ~ the records are abominable AND many have been changed to avoid including Rais in the blood line ~ and some others as well, particularly the French.
I don’t agree that monarchs in European countries are mere figureheads - having lived in some of these countries.
Saudi Arabia isn’t even a real country,.so who its head is is irrelevant.
“I don’t agree that monarchs in European countries are mere figureheads - having lived in some of these countries.”
I disagree with you. There are no relevant monarchies left in Europe, you just may be mistaking them for being relevant.
Saudi Arabia may not be a real country, but they are headed by a real tyrant king who can and often does cut peoples heads off on a Saturday night. The monarchs in Saudi Arabia are most certainly more “relevant” than any in Europe when the scope of their power is considered.
The only reason why European “monarchs” are not tyrants is that they have no relevance....outside of tourism
I get my opinions on first hand experience, not from National Geographic or The Reader’s Digest. And having actually lived in countries that are monarchies, my experience informs me otherwise.
“I get my opinions on first hand experience, not from National Geographic or The Reader’s Digest.”
You need to go visit these places again. This time try getting out a bit and doing something other than watching HBO in your hotel and eating at McDonalds.
You never lived in a country in Europe where a monarchy was relevant. There are none.
You dialed a very wrong number: Never stayed in a hotel, because I lived there, as in, lived there. Didn’t own a tv, so no HBO. I’ve never set foot in a McDonald’s in my life, much less eaten the food.
Any other ridiculous stories you want to make up about me?
“Any other ridiculous stories you want to make up about me?”
No, that pretty much sums it up.
“McDonald’s in my life, much less eaten the food.”
Wait. You’re a Burger King man, aren’t you? I get it now - hey that was a good one.
“They wanted England overrun.”
Newflash, England was Catholic prior to the reformation. How can you overrun your own home?
You see that whole Cathedral of Canterbury? We built that. St. Patrick? Catholic. St. Bede the venerable? Catholic. St. Augustine? Catholic. St. George? Catholic. St. David? Catholic.
The list goes on. I could continue but I hope the point has been made.
I think the condition is only against the monarch being Catholic. No issue with a Jewish one :-)
“Newflash, England was Catholic prior to the reformation. How can you overrun your own home?”
England was Catholic, yet Rome was also political and wanted Spain to invade and overthrow for political reasons.....It doesn’t have to make sense in the modern context, or even a religious context for it to be so.
“We built that.”
Yet the silly English paid for it and labored over it, and so they took it under standards of plunder and pillage of the time.
Your insistence that it’s still a “we” versus “them” blood feud after 500 years is particularly unproductive and unworthy of any debate whatsoever.
If “You” really want it back, raise an army and take it back, 16th-century style. See how silly it is?
Ridiculous.
“The list goes on.”
Why would Cathedrals built before the reformation be anything but Catholic? Is there a point?
What you seem to be arguing against is that the reformation occurred at all.
The point is that 500 years ago, England had every reason to oppose the Catholic church - and did so. It marked the decline of the Catholic church as a political entity, and the rise of the nation state to take it’s place. Today the Catholic church poses no political threat to England. The exclusion of Catholicism in the Royal family is an anachronism - but indeed, so is the Monarchy itself.
Ambivalence towards kings is an American tradition. The English Royal family means something to some in the UK and former British colonies, but they have no real political function.
“You” don’t have any more claim on that which is British than any other religion.
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.