Hear Ye, Hear Ye: Royal Heirs May Wed Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
A 300-year-old ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics will be overturned and discrimination against royal daughters removed under reforms proposed on Wednesday by Prime Minister David Cameron.

More…
 
Given the openly licentious behavior of “the royals” the past thirty or so years, I wonder if this development is a good thing.
 
Greetings to those reading and or posting this thread,

This is probably a good thing. Now let’s see if it will pass.

God Bless.
Anathama Sit
 
Maybe England is shaping up to be the one protestant country that converts to the true faith, and leads Europe back to the faith during the time of crisis.
 
Maybe England is shaping up to be the one protestant country that converts to the true faith, and leads Europe back to the faith during the time of crisis.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t bet on it. Britain is becoming thoroughly secular. This is just another step towards disestablishing the C of E.
 
Catholic_Press said:
A 300-year-old ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics will be overturned and discrimination against royal daughters removed under reforms proposed on Wednesday by Prime Minister David Cameron.

More…
Click to expand...
And Catholics are not supposed to marrying anyone outside the Faith. How is this of any benefit to us? Who cares about their royalty anyways.

This guy got some up his sleeves. I never understimate the power of the enemy.
 
wisdomseeker said:
And Catholics are not supposed to marrying anyone outside the Faith. How is this of any benefit to us? Who cares about their royalty anyways.

This guy got some up his sleeves. I never understimate the power of the enemy.
Click to expand...
The enemy? Would that be Brits then?
 
wisdomseeker said:
And Catholics are not supposed to marrying anyone outside the Faith. How is this of any benefit to us? Who cares about their royalty anyways.

This guy got some up his sleeves. I never understimate the power of the enemy.
Click to expand...
Who is ‘us’ Wisdomseeker? Oh I see: US
 
A problem that might develop from this is that (and I’m pretty sure Cameron and others are aware of this) if an (at least) devout Catholic marries into the Royal , he/she is obligated by Church teaching to raise their child in the Catholic faith, irrespective of the fact that the other parent is Anglican and does not have to convert. What would happen if the child is closely in the direct line of succession and the State Religion is still the Church Of England? Remember, the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England. Could lead to “problems,” to say the least. This has both “good and bad” things in it.
Thoughts to ponder.🤷👍
 
I think they should keep the sons thing. Does that make me deviant? 😊
 
Garyjohn2 said:
I think they should keep the sons thing. Does that make me deviant? 😊
Click to expand...
No, you’re not deviant. I’m with you on this!

Why do the politicians always have to change everything in the name of ‘gender equality’?

‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’ :mad:

Regarding heirs to the throne marrying Catholics…well, the only way that happens would be when the Church of England is ‘disestablished’ from the State.
 
The sons daughters thing is not an issue for me, however I can see an issue with the freedom to marry a Catholic…
While it is nice in principle, what happens to the idea of needing to raise any children in the faith?
Barb touches on this in her post. So long as the Monarch is also the head of the Church of England, there is going to be a problem. Of course this wouldn’t apply so much to those members of the royal family not in direct line of succession.

Peace
James
 
I never understood why they kept the king or queen as head of the church for so long. I know Henry VIII did it to sate his ego, but a monarch is first and foremost a head of state, and may need to make decisions that go against Church teaching. The Pope is first and foremost a priest, and his role of head of Church takes priority over his role as head of state, but kings and queens can’t be priests. I know the C of E allows married and female priests, but I’ve never heard of the king or queen of England celebrating a service. Give control of the C of E to the Archbishop of Canterbury or even better, come back to Rome. As for the son thing, arguably two of England’s greatest monarchs were queens in their own right, so about time.
 
I for one am thrilled that the monarchy will no longer be a ‘boys only’ club! No more of this: “Sorry princess, your brother’s penis takes precedence over the fact that you were born first,” BS.
 
It’s interesting to reflect that had the’ first-born inherits’ rule been in force in Tudor times, we would not have had Henry VIII as he had an elder sister.

And if we hadn’t have had Henry VIII, would we have had the Reformation in England?
 
Ladygem said:
I never understood why they kept the king or queen as head of the church for so long. I know Henry VIII did it to sate his ego, but a monarch is first and foremost a head of state, and may need to make decisions that go against Church teaching. The Pope is first and foremost a priest, and his role of head of Church takes priority over his role as head of state, but kings and queens can’t be priests. I know the C of E allows married and female priests, but I’ve never heard of the king or queen of England celebrating a service. Give control of the C of E to the Archbishop of Canterbury or even better, come back to Rome. As for the son thing, arguably two of England’s greatest monarchs were queens in their own right, so about time.
Click to expand...
Something to remember about the monarch being both spiritual and temporal ruler is that for many centuries the Pope was just that. Spiritual Ruler of the Church but also the temporal Monarch of the Papal States. In addition, the Pope was very involved in the political life of the countries ruled by "Christian (Catholic) Kings.

You make the comment above about how these roles can find themselves in conflict and indeed they did many times as the spiritual and the political - the long term and short term - the temporal and the eternal - all vied for attention.

Of course over time, our outlooks have changed somewhat re: religion and state. Perhaps someday the C of E and the government of England will part ways…

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top