Ontario Court Upholds Act Barring Catholics From (British) Throne

The National Post ^ | July 2, 2003 | Adrian Humphreys

[Loyalist]

An Ontario court judge has dismissed an unusual lawsuit that sought to impose the Canadian Charter of Rights over a 300-year-old British act establishing the Rules of Succession to the Crown because it bars Catholics from ascending the throne.

Rejecting the case against the Queen brought by a former Toronto city councillor, Justice Paul S. Rouleau of the Ontario Superior Court suggested such a change could see a return to the bloody past when civil wars raged over who would inherit the throne.

"If the courts were free to review and declare inoperative certain parts of the rules of succession, Canada could break symmetry with Great Britain, and could conceivably recognize a different monarch than does Great Britain," he writes in his decision, released last week.

"In fact, Canada could arguably reanimate the debate regarding the heir to the throne, an argument that was resolved by the Act of Settlement. This would clearly be contrary to settled intention, as demonstrated by our written Constitution, and would see the courts changing rather than protecting our fundamental constitutional structure."

Tony O'Donohue, a Canadian Catholic of Irish descent, launched the lawsuit after his 22-year letter-writing campaign failed to convince politicians to quash sections of the Act of Settlement, 1701, a British statute that is part of Canada's constitution.

It limits succession to the British throne to the "Protestant line, for the happiness of the nation." It says: "All and every person ... [who] shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or should profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, should be excluded, and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Crown and government of this realm."

It was enacted when the childless King William III was seriously ill and his sister-in-law, Anne, who was the prospective replacement, had lost her only surviving child.

The issue of succession was keenly watched not only by the royal family but also by supporters of James II, the exiled king.

By declaring that only the Protestant heirs of Princess Sophia, Electoress of Hanover, were eligible for the throne, the act was responsible for the accession of the House of Hanover to the throne in 1714.

Mr. O'Donohue said the act is offensive and counter to the equality provisions of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"I thought these medieval laws, based on discrimination of religion and race and property and creed, had all melted away," he said. "But, no, there it is."

He vows to continue his fight and to appeal the ruling. "A lot of changes have happened in the past 300 years. It's time we cleaned up our act. It should have been scrapped a long time ago. I know it is going to change sometime, but it is a question of who is going to have the ability to change it."

The ruling deals only with the mechanics of the claim, not the merits of its arguments.

ahumphreys@nationalpost.com

© Copyright 2003 National Post

[SoothingDave]

Y'know ... come to think of it ...what business is it of Canada's anyway?

Dintcha read the article? The Queen is Canada's Queen as well. The Queen of Canada just happens to be the same person as the Queen of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland. Dintcha ever wonder why she's on Canadian coins 'n'at?

SD

[al_c]

Thanks ... I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to the English royalty. I especially wonder why they're still in existence. Seems silly to me.

[SoothingDave]

The "Commonwealth" countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand) are technically all under one royal leader. Rather that gaining "independence" as the US did, these other British colonies were given self-rule. However, for ceremonial and other reasons, they remain united under the Queen. Who has no real power, but serves as a figurehead.

Then again, maybe a Texan knows what's on Mexican coins. I don't have a clue.

SD

[al_c]

Then again, maybe a Texan knows what's on Mexican coins. I don't have a clue.

Which coin? ;o)

[SoothingDave]

Uh, the Peso? (He's says, totally clueless as to what coins are available)

SD

[al_c]

Notes come in 50, 100, 200, and 500 pesos.
Coins are 20, 10, 5 pesos; 50, 20, 10, 5 centavos.

[RonF]

Dintcha ever wonder why she's on Canadian coins 'n'at?

I thought that was Carol Burnett?

[Guelph4ever]

Ahh, poor member of the misinformed masses. FYI: far less people were executed by "Bloody" Mary than by either King Henry VIII or Elizabeth I. Read up about a little thing called "The Pilgrimage of Grace" and a heroic man named Robert Aske who stood up to serial-husband Henry. There is also evidence from Catholics in Ireland, England and Scotland (Mary Stuart!?) that Queen Elizabeth I was not exactly pure as the driven snow in terms of religious tolerance.

You should also come up to date of the fact that the much hyped Spanish Inquisition was pretty boring. Your chances of survival were much better with them than with the secular courts. In fact, during the first few *months* of the Spanish Republic, more Catholics were killed than all of the heretics put to death under the Inquisition over a period of *centuries*.

Catholicism has always been the bastion of conservatism, this sort of forum would be the last place I would expect to find Catholic-bashing. Anyway, here's some 'fuzzy math':

In total, Henry VIII's religious crackdown against Catholics resulted in the deaths of 649 people.
Queen Mary I had 104 executed for religious reasons.
Queen Elizabeth I had 189 people executed in England for religious reasons, plus far more in Ireland, particularly in the 9 Years War. So, total death toll is:
838 Catholics killed by Protestants vs
104 Protestants killed by Catholics-> I know who I'd choose.

[TexConfederate1861]

Now hold on...I minored in English History, and I am not as "dense" as you think. And I am not Catholic Bashing. I was pointing out that the Catholic faith simply has more blood on it's hands than other denominations. That is a fact. That doesn't mean the Church condones it now.

Now, for a few corrections to your statements.

I am familiar with Aske, and that is regretable. I am also familar with Sir Thomas More, who is a personal hero of mine. Henry VIII was a bloody tyrant. No doubt there.

Elizabeth I : Most of the executions of Catholics were for TREASON, not for religous belief. The Pope was actively encouraging rebellion by Catholics against her rule, and for the most part she was a very tolerant ruler.

Let's talk about St. Bartholmew Day, and the death of the French Protestants.....no defense there! They were slaughtered. PERIOD. and the Pope had a medal struck.

In the debate earlier, I was pointing out that Orthodoxy has no history of persecution comparable.

[Guelph4ever]

Well, I majored in history and teach it for a living, and I can tell you that the "treason" defense does not work for Elizabeth I, were the Irish committing treason for fighting against a religion being forced on them? Henry *claimed* that Moore & the others were committing treason as well.

Now, since you want to trespass into French history, you should know that the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre was instigated by Catherine d'Medici, who had failed to support the Pope in the crusade against the Muslims, for the sake of her own hold on power NOT because of anything to do with the Church.

Protestants have no right to point any fingers at Catholics for being "bloody" when one considers the words of the "founding father" of the Protestant movement, Martin Luther, who said of the Catholic Church that he wanted to, "bring matters to a conclusion, no longer by words but by steel...and wash our hands in their blood". yeah-real non-violent.

BTW, I think like most people, I would definitely say that accusing the Catholic Church of being the bloodiest in the world is a perfect definition of Catholic-bashing.

Protestantism, enshrining the idea that everything is relative, everyone can set their own moral standards, and everyone can do 'what is right in their own eyes' is universally regarded as the begining of modern liberalism, go to any university in the country to check this out. Oh, and BTW, Mr "Confederate", Jefferson Davis was educated in a Catholic school, the Holy See was the first foreign government to send an envoy to the southern nation and Blessed Pope Pius IX sent Jefferson Davis a care package while he was in prison after the war, which included a rosary (I know, I've seen it).

--Try to know who you're friends are before you turn on them please. And a Texan too (I can't believe it), have you ever noticed that ALL of our great state's oldest and most cherished buildings are *Catholic Churches*? Please, please

[TexConfederate1861]

Friend:

I am NOT your enemy. Texas has an old and very noble Catholic Heritage. In regards to Elizabeth, again..you must realize that RELIGON and politics were VERY much intwined together in those days, not like it is today at all. Elizabeth held no animosity towards Catholics, but wanted to keep her position as "Head of the Church" in England. There were several very real threats to her rule, and they were directly instigated by Catholic leaders who had lost some of their positions, and blessed by the POPE himself! By definition, under English Law, if a person did not accept the act of Supremecy, then it was TREASON.

As for France, well, wether Catherine de Medici instigated it or not, the Catholic League and the POPE celebrated and had a medal struck in honor of it.

You misunderstand me. I am NO Catholic Basher. I am a historian, and just like my own church, (Russian Orthodox) has issues it must own up to and face, so Catholics must realize that in the past, the church was overzealous in it's search and prosecution of heretics.

Also: I am VERY familiar with Jefferson Davis and his history, and most of my family are Catholics as well.
I am a Civil War reenactor, so I keep up with such things.

[Guelph4ever]

I must say, I never thought I would see the day that a Russian Orthodox would fly to the defense of a Protestant liberal who thought nothing of having a fellow monarch put to death.

The fact that being Catholic was considered treason proves to me that Elizabeth I had something very strong against them.

And why do you apply different standards to Queen Mary? Why were those who tried to keep her from her rightful place on the throne not considered traitors? Cranmer was executed for treason, yet you do not excuse Mary for that. Remember Jane Grey--she didn't try to take over all by herself.

The fact is, as modern historical research has shown, by people far removed from the 'passions' of the day, the horrific tales of "Bloody" Mary came from Foxe's "Book of Martyrs" which was written during Elizabeth I's reign and has been proven to be nothing but Protestant propaganda written by the winners in a political contest to turn England forever against the Catholic Church.

Elizabeth should have been paranoid, and the Church, just like the English people, had no cause to recognize her as she was an illegitimate monarch, the daughter of an illegitimate marriage between Henry VIII and a woman other than his legal wife. The next monarch to succeed Mary should have been Mary Queen of Scots, which is exactly why Elizabeth had her framed and murdered.

Here are some more facts for you about your beloved Queen Bess: according to her laws, anyone who did not attend Anglican services were fined, if you attended Mass (which was illegal to even be celebrated) you were fined, arrested and forced to take the Oath of Supremacy, and if you refused more than once you were executed. If you brought a rosary or a religious icon into the country all of your personal property would be confiscated, if you converted or helped another convert to Catholicism you were guilty of treason and executed and all priests were to be executed as traitors as well. People were bribed to betray Catholics, and those imprsoned were tortured until they revealed the names of more of them. No, she had nothing against Catholics did she.

What exactly has the liberal, Parliament-ruled monarchy of England done for the Russian Orthodox? I seem to remember that after 1917 Tsar Nicholas II asked for asylum in Britain from his cousin King George V, but dear George refused on the grounds that his Parliament would not take kindly to liberal Britain providing shelter for the deposed autocratic Tsar. Things would have been much different had the Catholic Stuarts still been in power (who believed a monarch should have a 'role' instead of just a 'place' in government). Know who your friends are.

Church of England: ordains women priests and allows an openly gay man to be a bishop. Doesn't sound like a friend of the Orthodox to me...

[TexConfederate1861]

First:

The Episcopal Church does those things, NOT the Church of England...and they are cutting ties with the American Church for that exact reason.

Mary I had every right to execute people for treason, but Cramner wasn't a good example for you to use. He was executed solely for his faith. (and the fact he engineered the marriage of Henry & Anne!)

Elizabeth was not illegitimate. Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn was made legal by an act of Parliment, which was the law of the land. And for all your dislike for Queen Bess, she was one of the most tolerant and enlightened rulers of the day. Mary, Queen of Scots was NOT capable, and plotted to overthrow Elizabeth from day one. She lost her head for it, which was just.
She couldn't even manage to rule her OWN country, much less England. Foxe's book of Martyrs does contain some propaganda, but there is a measure of truth in it as well.

Just because I am Orthodox, doesn't mean I reject my English-Scot heritage. England was the greatest nation on the earth at that time. Considering that the "Catholic" nations of the world were trying to overthrow and conquer their island, it makes sense that they would bann the Catholic faith. As I said earlier, religon & politics were intermixed in those days. I still would like to hear your justification of the St. Bartholomew Day massacre, and the medal that was struck, etc. You are strangely silent on that issue.

As I have been saying, I realize that the Roman Church has apologized for it's excesses, etc. and does not condone such a thing now.

[Guelph4ever]

I did not say CofE, I said ANGLICAN, which includes both, and as yet, no ties have been broken.

Cranmer was clearly guilty of treason as he tried to prevent the succession of the legitimate monarch (Queen Mary) and supported the enthronment of the imposter Jane Grey. Anyone who can read all of the facts I have listed and still call Elizabeth enlightened and tolerant clearly cannot form an unbiased opinion on this subject. I also never said anything about Mary Stuart being capable or un-capable, however to believe that she was "plotting against Elizabeth from day one" has been proven to be far from the truth. If you insist on ignoring the facts and putting blind faith in that, I can't help you. Elizabeth WAS illegitimate as no Parliament on this earth has the right to tear apart what God has joined together-period.

How does your "Scot" heritage react to Henry & Elizabeth's invasions of Scotland? You love to go on about the 'planned' Catholic invasion of England, but are silent about England's own intervention. England was getting rich by supporting piracy against Spain, they were lending support to rebels in the Netherlands, trying to overthrow the lawful Spanish government and need I remind you again how simply being a Catholic in Elizabethan England was considered a hanging offense?

As much as you seem to enjoy ignoring what I say, I have already addressed the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre. It was the work of one woman, who did it to elevate her own power, not for any devotion to religion or for the Church. There is such a thing as bad Catholics-wow, you want a prize for discovering that? Catherine d'Medici would be much more deserving of your abuse than Mary I. Her actions had disasterous consequences for the Church. Just because someone claims to be a Catholic does not mean I have to agree with or defend them, you might think about looking at Protestants in the same way.

[TexConfederate1861]

OK...if Catherine de Medici was the only one responsible then WHY did the Pope have a medal struck in HONOR of the occasion? You haven't answered that yet. The fact that you are choosing to ignore is that the Church DID support the massacre, even if they didn't start it as you say. I have a picture of the medal and will be more than happy to send it to you. Here is some documentation concerning the Pope:

"The news of the bloody deed was received with unbounded joy by the pope at the Vatican. The Cardinal of Lorraine presented the messenger who brought the news to Rome with a thousand pieces of gold and exclaimed that the King’s heart had been filled with a sudden inspiration from God when he ordered the massacre (Smedley, History of the Reformed Religion in France, 1834, II, p. 36).

"The pope and his Cardinals proceeded at once to the High Altar, after the dispatches from Paris had been read in Conclave, to offer thanks for ‘the great blessing which Heaven vouchsafed to the Roman See and to all Christendom. Salvoes of artillery thundered at nightfall from the ramparts of St. Angelo; the streets were illuminated; and no victory ever achieved by the arms of the Pontificate elicited more tokens of festivity. The pope also, as if resolved that an indestructible evidence of the perversion of moral feeling which Fanaticism necessarily generates should be transmitted to posterity, gave orders for the execution of a commemorative Medal’ (Smedley, II, p. 35).

"This medal, an original of which can be seen in the British Museum inculcated the message that the massacre was the joint result of Papal counsel and Divine instrumentality. On one side of the medal is a profile of the pope surrounded by his name and title and on the other side an angel is depicted bearing in one hand a cross and in the other a sword with which he is killing a fallen host of Huguenots. The wording on this side is ‘The slaughter of the Huguenots 1572.’

"Wylie describes the rejoicing and thanksgiving of the pope as follows:

"’Through the streets of the Eternal City swept, in the full blaze of Pontifical pomp, Gregory and his attendant train of cardinals, bishops and monks, to the Church of St. Mark, there to offer up prayers and thanksgivings to the God of heaven for His great blessing to the See of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church. Over the portico of the church was hung a cloth of purple, on which was a Latin inscription most elegantly embroidered in letters of gold, in which it was distinctly stated that the massacre had occurred after "counsels had been given." On the following day the Pontiff went in procession to the Church of Minerva, where, after mass, a jubilee was published to all Christendom, "that they might thank God for the slaughter of the enemies of the Church, lately executed in France." A third time did the pope go in procession, with his cardinals and all the foreign ambassadors then resident at his court, and after mass in the Church of St. Louis, he accepted homage from the Cardinal of Lorraine, and thanks in the name of the King of France, for the counsel and help he had given him by his prayers, of which he had found the most wonderful effects’ (J.A. Wylie, History of Protestantism, 1899, II, p. 606).

"As an enduring monument the pope commanded three paintings to be put in hand by George Vasari. These frescoes originally bore the following inscriptions, ‘Gaspard Coligny, the Admiral is carried home wounded;’ ‘The slaughter of Coligny and his companions;’ ‘The King approves Coligny’s slaughter.’ Some time ago the Vatican had the inscriptions deleted from the frescoes" (Wylie, II, p. 606).

The reason Cramner was executed, and I will provide the documentation if you insist, was for his BELIEFS, Lady Jane Grey aside. Read the account of it:

"King Edward was succeeded by his sister Mary, a convinced Roman Catholic, who remembered Cranmer's responsibility for her mother's unhappy divorce from her father. Accused, tried and sentenced to death for treason, he was spared by Mary *until he was finally tried for heresy.*

*Sentenced for that offense and publicly degraded*, Cranmer recanted almost his whole position, affirmed transubstantiation (a more physical belief in the presence of Christ in the bread and wine an Communion) and the supreme authority of the Pope in the English Church.

Nonetheless he was sentenced to death, when finally given the opportunity to speak before and during his execution (at Oxford on March 21st, 1556, by burning at the stake, a form of execution restored by Mary that he had abolished) he renounced his recantations and his cowardice, holding the hand with which he had signed the documents outlining his recantation into the flames.


This information is historical record.

[Guelph4ever]

Again, you are ignoring everything I say and changing the subject when you see you are at a loss. If you want to start bringing up other events from around the world, why don't you talk about the "Calvanist Fury"? I accept there have been bad "Catholics" and even immoral popes on occasion, yet you seem to be unable to do the same regarding Protestants. The fact that people are more familiar with Catholic crimes only serves to illustrate the liberal bias that Protestantism has given us.

Queen Elizabeth killed many hundreds of Catholics in her persecution, and 800 Catholic rebels at Smerwick in Ireland. How do you respond to this, why is that okay? She is called "Good Queen Bess" while Queen Mary is called "Bloody Mary" almost entirely because of the Protestant bias of most English historians.

In terms of the events of history that did take place, it is absolutely true that a number of men and women were killed by Catholic authorities over the centuries. Such events are sad ones and should never have happened; thus the Holy Father has made a NUMBER of apologies for historical events that were not in keeping with the Gospel. TO THIS DAY, no similar apology has EVER been given to Catholics in Ireland, England, and elsewhere for the cruel persecutions inflicted upon them for several centuries by Protestants. Additionally, the Second Vatican Council made manifest that all forms of persecution are intolerable and contrary to the Gospel; this has been reiterated and promoted even further by Pope John Paul II throughout his pontificate.

You don't need to let ethnic loyalty tie you to cruel and illegitimate leaders just because they are British. There are plenty of other good examples to follow instead: Richard the Lionheart, Robert Aske, Thomas More, Charles I, James II, Charles Stuart, etc. The only thing that saddens me more is that I seem to be the only Catholic around here unwilling to let Protestants trample all over the Church.

[TexConfederate1861]

Partner:

One part of my family was exiled for fighting for "Bonnie Prince Charlie" in the Jacobite Rebellion. One died at Culloden. I admire many Catholic monarchs as well. I am not sure I agree with "Richard the Lionheart" especially since he was homosexual! I might add that Charles I was not Catholic. I am no Protestant to be sure, and yes, there were apologies made by the Pope, though not till recently. As for the Protestants apologising, yes, they should, but they have no central authority to be able to do so. As for the Irish, well, they were slaughtered because they were IRISH, and rebels, and I am quite sure that their beliefs were a second thought. Now if you want to accuse a Protestant, look at what Cromwell did at Drogheda, or King William at the Battle of the Boyne!

[Guelph4ever]

Boy, this just keeps getting stranger. A Texan, a southern sympathizer, living historian, Orthodox Christian and descendant of Jacobites, are you sure we're not related? If you didn't have such a hatred against Catholics I'd have you down to the ranch for a steak.

I know Charles I was not a Catholic (there are actually a few people outside of my Church I do admire see), but being a High Anglican is about as close as you can get without bending your knee to the Pope of Rome. I'm not sure I believe that about Richard I, gays seem to be trying to 'invent' a history for themselves, and they've been saying the same about King James I for some time and I still don't buy that.

As for Cromwell, a bloody liberal traitor and murderous tyrant, hear-hear!

[TexConfederate1861]

I keep tellin you, I DON'T HATE CATHOLICS....
I can deplore certain acts that were done without hating the Roman Church. I honestly pray that someday the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics can be resolved. I am not Protestant, nor do I support the majority of their beliefs, but....I do not believe in forcing my belief on someone at swordpoint, or by burning them for heresy.

I am well aware most Roman C's don't condone or approve of errors done. Just as I don't approve of the pogroms and forced conversions done by MY Church.

Let's just focus on the things we DO have in common.
What part of Tejas do you hail from partner?

[royalcello]

I for one would be happy to see the two of you get along as, while Guelph4ever and I are old friends from the world of internet royalism, I have in the past also admired some of TexConfederate's posts. Since I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but a pro-Christian monarchist with a deep respect for both traditions, perhaps I can look at this somewhat objectively.

Basically, I agree with the approach of Chronicles editor Thomas Fleming (a Catholic), who once wrote that he is quite prepared to accept that both Churches have legitimate historical greviances against adherents of the other, but now it is time to move past that and unite against the common enemies of Islam, secularism, and multiculturalism.

I personally have yet to choose between Rome and Constantinople (though I definitely lean toward the former--sorry, Tex), but in the spirit of equal devotion to the memory of the martyrs of both the French and Russian Revolutions, I will always wish both Catholic and Orthodox Christians the best and hope that someday, somehow, the sad division of 1054 can be healed.