British Catholics and the Queen

  • Thread starter Thread starter michael-kaw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twf said:
As Queen of Canada, she is not head of the Church of England. Her role in Canada is completely secular. šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
True.
twf said:
In fact, she is only officially Anglican in regards to her role in England . Even in Scotland she is, officially, Presbyterian. Go figure.
Click to expand...
I didnā€™t know that. Wow
 
IWantGod said:
When did the monarchy become a figurehead role instead of a full fledged authority?
Click to expand...
As far as I know, there was no single point in time, but it was more of a process. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 established the supremacy of Parliament. The king remained the chief executive but by the start of the 20th century it was well established that the monarch should only exercise royal prerogative on the advice of the prime minister.
 
Last edited:
I think you could morally join that group if you are so inclined. Get enough people to join and you could see the end of the monarchy.
 
ltwin said:
As far as I know, there was no single point in time, but it was more of a process. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 established the supremacy of Parliament. The king remained the chief executive but by the start of the 20th century it was well established that the monarch should only exercise royal prerogative on the advice of the prime minister.
Click to expand...
Right. Which is why I find it somewhat amusing when Americans make a big deal of overthrowing the ā€œtyranny of King Georgeā€. Even in the late 18th century, at the time of the American Revolution, it is my understanding that the UK was more of an oligarchy than a true monarchy.
Even during the reign of Queen Victoria (19th century), I think it was more or less unthinkable for the monarch to refuse to give Royal Assent to legislation passed by Parliament (not to say that the monarch didnā€™t exercise real influence as well).
As I understand it, the big shift in the late 19th / early 20th century was from the Lords to the Commonsā€¦not so much from the Monarchy to Parliament.
 
twf said:
Which is why I find it somewhat amusing when Americans make a big deal of overthrowing the ā€œtyranny of King Georgeā€. Even in the late 18th century, at the time of the American Revolution, it is my understanding that the UK was more of an oligarchy than a true monarchy.
Click to expand...
During the American Revolution, prevailing political theory was that absolute power was held by ā€œthe King in Parliament.ā€ Britain was thought of as a mixed government: with all the positives of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy with none of the negatives. Each segment of society (royalty, nobility and ā€œthe peopleā€) were all believed to participate in Parliament (the nobles through the House of Lords, the people through the House of Commons and the king by way of royal assent to laws).

However, King George still exercised profound influence over the government through patronage. While the kings had lost much of their legal authority to Parliament, they made up for it through their abilities to grant honors and offices.

The king also exercised influence over the American colonies through the appointment of royal governors that were ultimately responsible to him rather than to the local legislatures elected by the colonies. The Americans resented both Parliamentā€™s efforts to tax the colonies without their consent as well as the Kingā€™s attempt to bypass these legislative bodies and rule personally through the governors.

The king played all kinds of games to frustrate colonial government. He wouldā€“through his governorsā€“refuse assent to colonial laws, dissolve legislative bodies and refuse permission for them to meet again so they would not become inconvenient, and he even denied permission to create new voting districts so that the entire colony could be represented in the legislature.

Another tactic was to order legislators to meet at strange times and places far removed from the colonial capital, which made their work more difficult.
 
Last edited:
poche said:
Get enough people to join and you could see the end of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
I have not the slightest inclination to do so .

God save the Queen .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
IWantGod said:
When did the monarchy become a figurehead role instead of a full fledged authority?
Click to expand...
By the time you get to 1688, what happened? You had the Glorious Revolution, where basically the reigning monarch, (Catholic) James II, gets sidelined by Parliament, and they install his (Protestant) daughter, Mary, with her Dutch husband, William, and you get the reign of William & Mary. At the same time, the next year, you get the English Bill of Rights, which solidified Parliamentā€™s power over the monarchy by placing additional restrictions upon the monarch. So now, thereā€™s no freedom of the monarch to levy taxes by royal prerogative-- it has to be done under the auspices of Parliament. Or gather an army without Parliamentā€™s approval. And the Crown canā€™t interfere with the law. etc, etc, etc. It turned the Monarchy into a Constitutional monarchy, prevented Catholics from reigning, gave individuals Constitutional rights, and set the Crown on a path towards being primarily ceremonial, although I think Queen Anne was the last monarch to actually veto a piece of legislation. (The Scottish Militia Bill, 1708-- they call it ā€œwithholding royal assentā€.) But even by that point, royal assent was pretty much considered a rubber stamping process-- it was just a formality.

The issue was compounded by having a succession of pretty mediocre kings on the throne, but some really vibrant/dynamic Prime Ministers.
 
michael-kaw said:
Apparently there was an agreement a very long time ago that British Catholics would be loyal to the Queen and be patriotic towards England but in spiritual matters they would be loyal to the Vatican, tone honest I REALLY donā€™t like having a Queen and Iā€™m not that patriotic towards England. Are these views ok or do they violate that agreement?
Click to expand...
I do not believe there was any official agreement. What happened was that as a result of the fall out of the English Reformation the papacy and English monarchy became enemies. Elizabeth I was declared a bastard and excommunicated by the Pope, who also declared her an unlawful ruler and encouraged the faithful of England to essentially overthrow her. The situation was made more dire for England because she was surrounded by powerful Catholic enemiesā€“especially Spain. There were indeed ā€œCatholicā€ plots to overthrow the Protestant government of England over the years, the most famous being the Guy Fawkes Gunpowder Plot of 1605.

The result of all of this is that Catholicism became associated not just with heresy but also with treason. Even people who felt tolerant toward Catholics personally were forced to admit that they were politically dangerous. The only way for that to change was for both sides to come to an understanding that you could be both Catholic and a loyal British citizen at the same time.

The same dynamic was at work in the United States. There was fear when large-scale Catholic immigration began in the 1800s that Catholics could never fit in as Americans because they would have to ā€œobeyā€ the Pope and therefore could not function as free citizens in a democratic republic. When John F. Kennedy was the first Catholic elected US President there was fear that he would take orders from the Vatican.
 
Last edited:
China seems to be in agreement with this concept of Catholics being more obedient to the Vatican than to the state.

Thatā€™s why the Chinese government insists on state approved Bishops.
 
How often do you have a head of state who actually believes instead of faking it to court voters?
 
Last edited:
During the reformation houses and pubs used to have ā€˜priest holesā€™ where priests would literally hide from the authorities and Iā€™ve seen one on a town near me.
 
Last edited:
As a British subject and Catholic I am pleased to have a Head of State who isnā€™t afraid to use the name of Jesus and be clear about her Christian faith in her Christmas message. Prayers for the Queen are still offered after Mass in the EF on a Sunday and the Ordinariate Morning and Evening Offices contain prayers for the Queen. Give me the Queen any day over a President.
 
Indeed. Have even heard the National Anthem sung in Catholic cathedrals on big state occasions.
 
One of the best known yet least known poems was published 110 years ago.

It is the poem by Minnie Haskins (1875-1957) quoted by King George VI in his Christmas Day broadcast in 1939. It came at the end of the nine-minute broadcast:

I feel that we may all find a message of encouragement in the lines which, in my closing words, I would like to say to you:

I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year,

ā€œGive me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown.ā€

And he replied, "Go out into the darkness, and put your hand into the hand of God.

That shall be to you better than light, and safer than a known way."

May that Almighty Hand guide and uphold us all.

The Kingā€™s broadcast was specifically Christian in content. He identified Christmas as ā€œabove all, the festival of peaceā€.

But Britain was of course at war (and, it is worth noting the obvious fact, obscured by hindsight, that at the time no one knew if Britain would win the war). ā€œI believe from my heart,ā€ George VI said, ā€œthat the cause which binds together my peoples and our gallant and faithful Allies is the cause of Christian civilisation.ā€
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top