G
goout
Guest
Blessings to him for standing up for human life. His political status is secondary.
All of us can look to him as an example.
Cousin of the Queen of the United Kingdom said abortion is worse than terrorism
- Status
All of us can look to him as an example.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
No, it probably matters more in Scotland and Northern Ireland than in England. As to the other Commonwealth realms, they wouldn’t mind at all. But the logistics of getting all 16 to cross the line at the same moment is not simple, and the real difficulty, as we saw with the Succession Act, is the opportunity it gives for political and legal trouble in the federal realms, Australia and Canada.
L
Lea101
Guest
I thought as per the recent act, it would be Harry? He’s next in line after the kids. I believe the 1937 one that was for Elizabeth was to determine future ones as well, rather than for the specific situation like past acts? Although this depends on whether UK is a permanent home for him (which doesn’t look like it at the moment).
Last edited:
B
BlessedYoungCatholic
Guest
Can we just feel proud of this man and his sacrifice.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
What did he sacrifice?
B
BlessedYoungCatholic
Guest
Well his family has a pretty important role in his former denomination and well I’m sure he had to deal with media backlash.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
His mother’s a Catholic and, as for the media, most people haven’t a clue who he is.
B
BlessedYoungCatholic
Guest
Can we just be happy that someone has returned home?
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Hey, I’m Jewish, I don’t care one way or another.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I was responding to this post which claims that the religion of the monarch didn’t really matter.You think that a Jew, Muslim, Hindu . . . . would have been acceptable?
Also had in mind this post below which said that Prince Charles would still be crowned king if he were to become Muslim. However he would be removed from the line of succession if he became Catholic.
Last edited:
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Because the UK is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch and members of the royal family are supposed to remain detached from politics and any controversial topics. It’s simply not appropriate for members of the royal family to express their views in public. In the case of Lord Nicholas Windsor, it’s not too bad, as he does not have a high profile and is not a working member of the royal family. However, he probably should be trying to keep a bit of a lower profile. His father is a royal duke who carries out duties on behalf of the monarch. I don’t think there are any official rules about just how distantly related you have to be to the monarch before you can start expressing political or controversial opinions, but I suspect if you’re the son of a royal duke that’s still a little too close for comfort.
They’ve probably prepared for every possible scenario, however unlikely, and no doubt somebody has arranged for Prince Andrew to be excused from any duties that may fall to him as a regent or counsellor of state.
He seems to be reliable, which is pretty much all one is looking for in a constitutional monarch.
I have not heard that.
As I understand it, the correct term is, as you say, “the Queen” within the realms and territories where she reigns and “the Queen of X” or “Queen Elizabeth II” outside of her realms and territories.
Perhaps, if one considers the sectarian problems… I meant purely constitutionally.
The only reason he ever appears in the media is when he’s talking about abortion. Well, that and marrying a beautiful European aristocrat in a lavish ceremony at the Vatican.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
He’s next in line to the throne after Charles, William, George, Charlotte and Louis, but that doesn’t give him any automatic rights to a regency, were a regency necessary.
Not sure what you mean by this.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Although of course the sectarian problems are indeed constitutional ones. But yep, fair enough.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
I think that Charles has remained detached from party political issues, and that is good enough. I suspect his training means that as king he will restrict himself further.
Last edited:
E
EmilyAlexandra
Guest
Yes, constitutional beyond the role of the monarch as supreme governor of the Church of England. The world is changing, and the role of religion and sectarianism will presumably only continue to decline. Back in the 1930s and 1950s, it was considered impossible for members of the royal family to marry divorced people, and divorced people could not be received at court. That is now obviously not an issue. For the youngest generation of royals, things will be even more different. If one of Prince William’s children were to be gay, for example, I honestly don’t think it would matter. 20 years from now, the royal family could have its first same-sex marriage, and I really don’t think that anybody would think twice about it.
Yes, I suspect he will behave himself when he actually becomes king. I think he’s gone too far with writing letters to ministers, interfering in the Chelsea Barracks planning application, getting involved in the Peter Ball scandal, and describing senior members of the Chinese government as “appalling old waxworks”. The Queen has never done anything like that.
Last edited:
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Yes, I agree with all that. Well, almost everybody wouldn’t think twice about it. And if I’m still here (which is unlikely) I shall be pleased at such an outcome.
… although I do worry a little about how we will replace the rôle of churches in our communities.
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Lord Nicholas Windsor is 49, he converted to the Catholic Church nineteen years ago, at the age of about 30, and nine years after that he wrote an article for First Things, which can be read online (link below). His degree of kinship is that he is the Queen’s father’s brother’s grandson. What else is there to say about it? Nothing, really.
R
_Ruby
Guest
I dont think it will do very much at all. Whilst he is part of the royal family, he is such a distantly peripheral member, most people wont really be aware he even exists.I believe the question is:
Can this intervention help prolife work in the UK?
Or can it even create problems for the British prolife?
I can’t answer these questions: seeing Downton Abbey and The Crown certainly doesn’t make me an expert on British things, I barely understand my country
Only two UK newspapers have even reported on the story (the Telegraph and the Express), so it isn’t even a particularly newsworthy story.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
I hadn’t heard about that. In what way did he get involved? Just making an unscripted remark along the lines of the “appalling old waxworks”, or something more substantial than that?
(I hadn’t heard, either, about the “appalling old waxworks”, which was pretty much on target. In Charles’ position, of course, he ought not to have said it, but it’s a good description of a lot of those CCP people).
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
How about a quick Google to establish this? I’m not aware of this. In the US it is virtually universal. But I agree with Kaninchen: in the UK it’s ‘the Queen’ unless the speaker is a Scot arguing to undo the Act of Union. Irish Republicans call her the ‘British’ Queen as the UK is the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which they would prefer to lose its last three words.
- Status