Charles to Wed Camilla!

  • Thread starter Thread starter FightingFat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A better idea yet would be to disestablish the Church of England, and also remove the remaining executive powers of the monarch, leaving us with a figurehead Queen for the tourists.

As a first step, removing the legal bar to the monarch or the heir to the throne marrying a ‘papist’ would be quite nice. Unfortunately it would also be a lot of work, as such legislation would have to passed in 15 different countries simultaneously, including Canada and Australia as well as Britain.

Mike
 
I felt bad for the pair. Their wedding date happened to coincide with John Paul’s funeral and the media were acting as though they somehow planned it that way!!! Very strange, though they did end up changing the date.
 
40.png
MikeWM:
A better idea yet would be to disestablish the Church of England, and also remove the remaining executive powers of the monarch, leaving us with a figurehead Queen for the tourists.
Click to expand...
I can’t agree. Take away the executive powers of the monarch, such as they are, and in one, maybe two generations there will no longer be a monarchy in England. Those with republican sympathies would see to that! It’s bad enough the press takes every opportunity fair or foul as it is now to topple the Queen and end the monarchy. Not even the tourists would come if that happened–it’s all England has to offer the world anymore.
As a first step, removing the legal bar to the monarch or the heir to the throne marrying a ‘papist’ would be quite nice. Unfortunately it would also be a lot of work, as such legislation would have to passed in 15 different countries simultaneously, including Canada and Australia as well as Britain.
Click to expand...
Mike
Click to expand...
Not to be contrary but being able to marry a papist wouldn’t do anything to end the monarchy in England, if that is what you were saying. Camilla is a Catholic, remember. Not that she is the best example of one, but I haven’t heard that she had to renounce her faith in order to marry Charles. She will probably practice her faith quietly.

What would be a huge challenge would be if a monarch wanted to return to the Catholic Church. He/she would have to renounce the title: “head of the Church in England”, which Charles has already said he would like to do in favor of turning that title over to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
 
40.png
Della:
I can’t agree. Take away the executive powers of the monarch, such as they are, and in one, maybe two generations there will no longer be a monarchy in England. Those with republican sympathies would see to that! It’s bad enough the press takes every opportunity fair or foul as it is now to topple the Queen and end the monarchy. Not even the tourists would come if that happened–it’s all England has to offer the world anymore.
Click to expand...
The Monarchy is the only thing that England offers to tourists? It’s a major draw, but it’s hardly the only thing.

Quite a few countries in Europe quite happily have a monarchy without quite substantial executive powers.
Not to be contrary but being able to marry a papist wouldn’t do anything to end the monarchy in England, if that is what you were saying.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to end the monarchy, I want to remove anachronistic powers from it.
Camilla is a Catholic, remember. Not that she is the best example of one, but I haven’t heard that she had to renounce her faith in order to marry Charles. She will probably practice her faith quietly.
Click to expand...
I beg to differ, she isn’t a Catholic. If she were Prince Charles would have to have legally renounced his claim to the throne in order to marry her. The Act of Settlement 1701 is still in force.
What would be a huge challenge would be if a monarch wanted to return to the Catholic Church. He/she would have to renounce the title: “head of the Church in England”, which Charles has already said he would like to do in favor of turning that title over to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Click to expand...
Which indeed probably ought to be done. It is a legislative nightmare though.

Mike
 
He/she would have to renounce the title: “head of the Church in England”
Click to expand...
Boy oh boy. would old Bluff King Hal roll in his grave over THAT one!
 
I beg to differ, she isn’t a Catholic. If she were Prince Charles would have to have legally renounced his claim to the throne in order to marry her. The Act of Settlement 1701 is still in force.
Click to expand...
Camilla converted to the Catholic Church when she married Parker-Bowles who was a cradle Catholic. I haven’t heard that she renounced the Church in order to marry Charles, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she did it privately or it simply wasn’t reported. Shades of Henry VIII. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Della:
Camilla converted to the Catholic Church when she married Parker-Bowles who was a cradle Catholic. I haven’t heard that she renounced the Church in order to marry Charles, but it wouldn’t surprise me if she did it privately or it simply wasn’t reported. Shades of Henry VIII. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I thought once a Catholic, always a Catholic, unless you were excommunicated (and I think we’d have heard about that).

There is a lot of confusion about this on the web, but it is hard to get a definitive legal opinion. The Act of Settlement 1701 is very clear on the heir to the throne not being able to marry a Catholic without renouncing the throne.

An awful lot of people assume that Camilla converted when she married her first husband, but I’ve seen no evidence of that, and the fact that she has married Charles and Charles still seems to be going to become King, shows to me that she can’t be a Catholic.

The only possible get-out would be if the legal interpretation of ‘papist’ was ‘practising Catholic’ rather than just ‘Catholic’, and I don’t believe it is.

Someone would have tested this in court, believe me, if there was any real evidence. In 1953 some Scottish people took the establishment to court over the fact that Elizabeth II should be called Elizabeth I in Scotland, as there hadn’t been a I in Scotland,and this was a putative breach of the Act of Union 1707. It was thrown out, mind 🙂 Britain is full of strange people, like me, that are interested in these little things 😉

This article from the Times is relatively authoritative (by which I mean it agrees with my opinion of the law 😉

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,2-1478265,00.html

The other potential complication might have been that the 1701 Act of Settlement prevents a Catholic, or anyone married to a Catholic, from succeeding to the throne. However, while the first husband of Mrs Parker Bowles was a Roman Catholic, she remained an Anglican and therefore the 1701 Act does not apply.

Mike
 
I did find an article written for some sort of encyclopedia that never mentioned Camilla converting to Catholicism, but that her and Parker-Bowles’ children were brought up “nominally Catholic,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Seemed like a snub to me. Anyway, I’m sure you’re right about Camilla’s religious affiliation, Mike. There would have been a legal set-to and a lot of fuss in the tabloids if she had been a Catholic, wouldn’t there. 😉
 
40.png
Della:
I did find an article written for some sort of encyclopedia that never mentioned Camilla converting to Catholicism, but that her and Parker-Bowles’ children were brought up “nominally Catholic,” whatever that is supposed to mean. Seemed like a snub to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I saw similar, I took it to mean they were baptised and not much else, or similar.
Anyway, I’m sure you’re right about Camilla’s religious affiliation, Mike. There would have been a legal set-to and a lot of fuss in the tabloids if she had been a Catholic, wouldn’t there. 😉
Click to expand...
Oh yes, even more than there was anyway! It’s a darn silly law though, and has no place in a 21st century democracy.

Mike
 
Oh yes, even more than there was anyway! It’s a darn silly law though, and has no place in a 21st century democracy.

Mike

It’s all tied up with the monarch’s title of “head of the Church in England,” isn’t it? If the monarch were to renounce that title and Parliament, or the House of Lords, or whoever it takes, agreed to it, then the other laws forbidding the royal family from marrying Catholics could more easily rescinded? Or am I not understanding this issue correctly?
 
40.png
Della:
It’s all tied up with the monarch’s title of “head of the Church in England,” isn’t it? If the monarch were to renounce that title and Parliament, or the House of Lords, or whoever it takes, agreed to it, then the other laws forbidding the royal family from marrying Catholics could more easily rescinded? Or am I not understanding this issue correctly?
Click to expand...
You’re close 🙂 It came about because of the Church of England thing, yes, it was a guarantee that the Anglican church wouldn’t be subsumed back into the Catholic Church.

Legally, there are a lot of difficult and old laws that would need to be altered to fix this, the main one being the 1701 Act of Succession, but there are a number of others too. And because the legal systems of various Commonwealth countries have their background in English law, they would have to change their laws too, simultaneously, else running the risk of different countries recognising different monarchs if the time came.

This is one of the problems with an ancient legal system, combined with your affairs being tied up with lots of other countries (Canada and Australia and about 12 smaller countries).

🙂

Mike
 
40.png
Della:
It’s all tied up with the monarch’s title of “head of the Church in England,” isn’t it? If the monarch were to renounce that title and Parliament, or the House of Lords, or whoever it takes, agreed to it, then the other laws forbidding the royal family from marrying Catholics could more easily rescinded? Or am I not understanding this issue correctly?
Click to expand...
Its “Church of England” not “Church in England”. The difference is crucial because Anglicanism is the State religion of England and so the Monarch as head of State is necessarily head on earth of the State religion. The monarch could not really renounce the title of the one without renouncing the other. The only way to resolve this dilemma would be to disestablish the Church.

Just to confuse matters the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian so the Monarch changes religion whenever she crosses the border. Since the CofS has no earthly head an alternative approach would be to turn the CofE into a Presbyterian Church. Since the CofE only exists to suit the convenience of the British Royal Family that should be easy enough to effect.
 
40.png
Matt25:
Its “Church of England” not “Church in England”. The difference is crucial because Anglicanism is the State religion of England and so the Monarch as head of State is necessarily head on earth of the State religion. The monarch could not really renounce the title of the one without renouncing the other. The only way to resolve this dilemma would be to disestablish the Church.

Just to confuse matters the Church of Scotland is Presbyterian so the Monarch changes religion whenever she crosses the border. Since the CofS has no earthly head an alternative approach would be to turn the CofE into a Presbyterian Church. Since the CofE only exists to suit the convenience of the British Royal Family that should be easy enough to effect.
Click to expand...
Be far simpler if they all came back to the true Church!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top