British royal's fiancée renounces Catholic faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter chewchoo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone on this thread or another thread said that the Queen is not the Head of the Church of England – the Archbishop of Canterbury is the Head of the Church, The Queen is the Governor, When the Queen visited pope JP II several years ago, they had a lighthearted moment when the Pope said something about running a Church, the Queen said something like, "Yes I have the same problem. Well evidently the Queen feels she is Head of the Church of England.

Why does the the PM choose the new Archbishop of Canterbury and the monarch only sign off?. If she is not the Head of the Church of England – then should not the Bishops select the new Archbishop? As I said before, the Anglican Church has an identity problem. The monarch is head of the church, the monarch is not the head of the church. They are neither fish (Catholic) nor fowl (Protestant). since the Archbishop is selected by the PM, can a PM ever be Catholic. As Alice said in Wonderland: “This is curioser and curioser.”
 
I presume that’s why Tony blair waited until he left No. 10 Downing Street. Well, let’s give him a tray and let him go down the cafeteria line – the same line Princess Autumn (sounds like Disney to me) used to be in.
 
kesa82 said:
The gaurds regiments ( Grenadier, Coldstream, Scots Gaurds, the guys who parade in frount of Buckingham palace ) are not, technically, part of the British army, they are part of the Queens household, that is, her private army. Anyway, last I checked, you couldn’t serve in a gaurds regiment if you were Catholic.

The Queen is still temporal head of the Church of England.

Does the Pope’s Swiss gaurd recruit protestant Swiss ?

There is a lot more to it than "keeping Catholics down. "
A LOT more.
Like, when the Catholic Stuart’s were dethroned and the House of Orange, and then the House of Hannover was invited in, it was with the understanding that no Catholic would ever rule again. I.e. it’s worked into the constitution.
Click to expand...
It’s a crazy throw-back to the Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the 30-years’ war in the 17th century. The Treaty established the principle cuios regio, aeos religio the king decides the religion (of his or her country). This was in response to the bloodiest fighting in European history, Protestants vs Catholics, and Protestants vs other kinds of Protestants, which had been going on since the Reformation.

Of course, the king no longer decides the religion, either in Britain or anywhere else, so all the anti-Catholic laws on the UK statute books are ridiculous.

In fact, there is a good probability that if anyone tried to challenge these laws in court, the right to freedom of religion provided by the European Human Rights Act would trump these outdated laws, and they would be disposed of. Of course, the Royal Family are far too polite and conformist to challenge their own country’s laws in their own courts.

I’m sure we can come to some kind of settlement now where the Queen could become Catholic without dragging the whole Church of England with her.

Not that it will matter in a few years’ time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1573452/Britain-has-become-a-‘Catholic-country’.html
 
This “Head of the Church” subject really intrigues me. I went back to some of my history books and reread the Byzantine Emperors and Caesaopapism. If the Queen is head of the Church as was the Eastern Emperors and then the Russian Tsars, then the Archbishop of Canterbury’s role is reduced to that of minister of religious affairs. Evidently, the UK is the last surviving form of Caesaropapism in the world. Can an argument be made then that Stalin was the Head of the Russian Orthodox church? let me hear from you all.
 
Well, in 2005, the British government named a Catholic as Ambassador to the Holy See for the first time since the “Reformation”, so perhaps the anti-Catholicism within the monarchy will be overcome some day, too. Previously, the post had always been held by a Protestant, as the Ambassador “should not be filled with unreasoning awe of the pope".

archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=256&s=1&a=5568
 
What a very sad reason for renouncing the faith. 😦 I personally think it is ridiculous that Catholics are not allowed to be royalty in Britain. Or maybe I am not understanding correctly. It is my understanding that Catholics are not allowed to be royalty. Am I correct? 🤷 :confused:
 
The institutionalised discrimination against catholics in Britain is set to continue for some considerable time: See Below taken from the House of Lords website - the question was asked in January this year - underlining is mine:

Lord Patten asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether, by the end of this Parliament, they intend to remove from the statute book all those provisions that discriminate against those of the Catholic religion. [HL814]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): The Government have always stood firmly against discrimination in all its forms, including against Roman Catholics, and they will continue to do so. To bring about change to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. The Government have no immediate plans to legislate in this area.
 
Is the fat guy the reason why Catholics can’t inherit the British throne? I mean, I realize he really wanted an annulment but geez! 😃 He took it out on ALL Catholics, forever??
 
HashemEchad said:
Is the fat guy the reason why Catholics can’t inherit the British throne? I mean, I realize he really wanted an annulment but geez! 😃 He took it out on ALL Catholics, forever??
Click to expand...
No, this is one that you can’t blame on the fat guy. Henry VIII didn’t bar the succession to Catholics - on the contrary he named his Catholic daughter Mary ahead of his Protestant daughter Elizabeth I in the succession. Although his son Edward VI attempted to put his Protestant cousin Jane Grey on the throne instead.

It was only in 1701, in a deal between William III and Princess Anne (who succeeded him as Queen Anne), and mindful of the disastrous reign of the Catholic James II which had come before, that the Act of Settlement was passed which required all monarchs and everyone in line to the throne to be non-Catholic, although in theory they could probably be anything else.

By this they were attempting to avoid what later happened anyway, rebellions in favour of James II’s Catholic descendants, James Stuart (the Old Pretender) and Bonnie Prince Charlie.
 
What about the British Prime Minister? Does he or she have to be non-Catholic?
 
LRThunder said:
What about the British Prime Minister? Does he or she have to be non-Catholic?
Click to expand...
Doesn’t seem to be the case - there was quite a period during Tony Blair’s PM-ship where his becoming Catholic was rumoured to be on the cards, and certainly his wife was Catholic all along. It didn’t seem to affect his/their popularity any, nor was his fitness for office ever questioned on grounds of religion 🤷

At this stage Britain is so secular that I don’t think very many people would turn a hair even if Her Maj herself swam the Tiber.
 
LilyM said:
Doesn’t seem to be the case … It didn’t seem to affect his/their popularity any, nor was his fitness for office ever questioned on grounds of religion 🤷.
Click to expand...
I don’t think he was as confident as you on this matter 😃 Notice he waited until he was out of office before converting - he may have been thinking that his politics and public declarations on abortion, right to choose, contraception and homosexuality might have been seen as being at odds with his catholic faith.
 
Re: The fat Guy

Actually, the fat guy thought he was Catholic until the day he died. He was about to try his current wife, Catherine Parr, for heresy, because she was virulently Protestant and authorized the printing of the bible in English while he was away. Fortunate for her, he died before that could come. about. Still, I don’t understand why he appointed protestant tutors for his son Edward and put him under the influence of Cranmer. This virtually assured that Edward would grow up to be Protestant, not RC or AC. by the way, Henry would not have a married clergy and believed in transubstantiation. . His archbishop, Cranmer, had a secret wife. Compare Canmer to More. Cranmer compromised all the way down the line,believing wholeheartedly in a married clergy, not believing in transubstantian, devotion to Mary and the Saints, etc., while More compromised on nothing. Read Duffy’s book “The Stripping of the Altar.”
 
addendum to the “Fat Guy” Post.

A friend of mine is a member of Forward in Faith – a conservative Episcopalian organization trying to be orthodox in their faith as the American Episcopalian church tries to blow itself up by ordaining gays, lesbians and women and blessing same sex marraiage. He said that the “Church of England was born in Henry VIII’s underdrawers,” “It’s birth was not about religious orthodoxy,a male heir, reform or any any other concept – just lust, sex and a spoiled brat getting his own way.”
 
LRThunder said:
What about the British Prime Minister? Does he or she have to be non-Catholic?
Click to expand...
A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister, which is why Blair waited untill he was out. Had he converted while still holding office he would have to have stepped down!
 
Nordar said:
A Catholic cannot be Prime Minister, which is why Blair waited untill he was out. Had he converted while still holding office he would have to have stepped down!
Click to expand...
There’s no legislation anywhere requiring the British PM to be Catholic - although as already stated it would’ve caused political problems for other reasons.

So what leads you to this statement?
 
LilyM said:
There’s no legislation anywhere requiring the British PM to be Catholic - although as already stated it would’ve caused political problems for other reasons.

So what leads you to this statement?
Click to expand...
Because I am British and it is a known fact that the Prime Minister cannot be Catholic.
 
Nordar said:
Lily M
Can you have a Roman Catholic Prime Minister of Great Britain?
In: English History, Catholicism, United Kingdom

No, there are laws that restrict Catholics from being Prime Minister. Tony Blair has to wait until he leaves office to convert to Catholicism, which was the case.

I found that on one site, but I also found this
independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-uwillu-become-a-catholic-454147.html
Click to expand...
No, as even the article says there is no more than SOME legal opinion that ONE Act possibly still applies, which is not at all the same thing as saying it ACTUALLY does still apply. It would need to be tested in the courts for a definitive answer. The opinion I’ve read, however, and I’ve read more than a small amount since the question was first raised here, is overwhelmingly to the contrary, so it hardly seems to be a ‘known fact’ that a Catholic cannot be PM.

With all respect, Nordar, I’m an Australian law student and have worked plenty in and around our legal profession - our citizens are for the most part incredibly ignorant of our laws, and the situation is no different in the UK or US.

In addition to the legal requirements, however, there are, which none of us has denied, a number of practical issues which may create difficulties for a Catholic PM. Most if not all of which, however, could be overcome by creative solutions such as Gordon Brown is employing by giving the appointment of Bishops back to Church authorities in the COE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top