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.
Yes, I think all those royals this has applied to in the last 20 odd years were so far down the line their chance of succeeding was nil. Nevertheless, one less discrimination against Catholics.
 
I have a love-hate relationship with Waitrose, it’s so easy to spend a small fortune.
 
Samuel63 said:
Yes I am. I suspect you understand discrimination very well.
Click to expand...
The thing is that both my families arrived in the UK from very difficult circumstances and the least of their concerns was the potential for marrying a monarch.

In order to understand the reality of monarchy today, from the point of view of Brits, you really do have to stop thinking in terms of all that history stuff and think more in terms of a ‘National Soap Opera’ - based around a dysfunctional but much-loved family and their antics.

Going on and on about: ‘Yes, you did!/So did you but even worse!’ religious conflicts means little in a country where being serious about religion is generally seen as an eccentric minority sport.

Europe is not the place that the ancestors of most Americans left, it’s somewhere different now.
 
Have to be careful about using cat-a-holic, perhaps I’d have to say mog-a-holic. 🙂
I suspect whether Catholics can marry the British monarch or not is not a burning concern to the millions of British Catholics. Just as I suspect in Stamford Hill the local Synagogues are not abuzz constantly on the topic of the possibility of Jews marrying into the House of Windsor.
Click to expand...
I think most people think it’s time some of the irrelevancies ended - particulary the daughter thing.
 
Well, the change won’t put the senior genealogical descendants of James II back on the throne (currently the Duke of Bavaria).

As far as I am concerned, the Act of Settlement is not legitimate law anyway. It’s an act of rebellion against the rightful king (in so far as any king of England has ever been rightful) and royal assent was given by a person illegally sitting on the throne.

And yeah, this means I don’t consider the Windsors legitimate monarchs over yonder, not like I have anything against them personally.
 
For some reason I keep calling them urbane foxes - well, you get a better class of fox in suburbia. If the cat-flap bangs loudly, you know the furry friends have spotted one.
I was rather indifferent to the whole change in the laws of succession. But I do find statements about England deserving better and silly comments on the state of affairs in the UK as ever a fund of great comedy.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, it’s as if European history is being re-lived across the ocean.
 
In even more kilts than the Windsors at a Highland Games, I expect.
 
You have foxes in London? In the city? That sounds interesting. I would like to have a pet fox, not sure it’s legal though. I once considered trying to adopt an emaciated black cat, but when I approached him he groweled at me (his suspicion understandable though; it’s a rough neighborhood :D). I just have an affinity for all-black cats. Perhaps that makes me a witch. Or rather a warlock.

On a more topical note, I am curious, what does British law stipulate when it comes to noble or royal titles about the marriage of persons of other protestant sects. Can an heit-apparent marry a Methodist or a Presbyterian? I presume neither of these could inherit the throne without converting, no?
 
Kaninchen said:
You’re talking to a Jew about the problem of Catholics marrying into the monarchy? 😃 😃
Click to expand...
But you asked for the example. Old Boy networks exist everywhere, and they’re of all types. What may not work for a Catholic or Jew in Great Britain, will work for them elsewhere. 😉 Upper class Britain does have a caste system of sorts.
 
Raskolnikov said:
You have foxes in London? In the city? That sounds interesting. I would like to have a pet fox, not sure it’s legal though.
Click to expand...
There are probably more foxes in English towns and cities than in the countryside. They make a very good living out of garbage but a fast-food diet is probably not that healthy. 😉
On a more topical note, I am curious, what does British law stipulate when it comes to noble or royal titles about the marriage of persons of other protestant sects. Can an heit-apparent marry a Methodist or a Presbyterian? I presume neither of these could inherit the throne without converting, no?
Click to expand...
The Act of Settlement of 1701 specifically precluded marriage to Catholics but non CofE Protestants would not appear to be precluded. It doesn’t say anything about people like Jews and atheists but they existed in the world of the impossible-to-imagine in 1701.

This is what the Monarch swears to in the Coronation Oath, by the way:

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
 
Tenofovir said:
But you asked for the example.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I meant something serious.
Old Boy networks exist everywhere, and they’re of all types. What may not work for a Catholic or Jew in Great Britain, will work for them elsewhere. 😉 Upper class Britain does have a caste system of sorts.
Click to expand...
I think Brits are just more overt about it.
 
Samuel63 said:
This is the monarchy remember that hunted down catholics like forest animals for over 250 years. Their persecution was generally gruesome. They robbed all church property and material goods. The inhabitants of the church property were thrown out on the street.
Click to expand...
I really had to blink at this bit of hyperbole, I have to admit, I know very little about Irish history, so it may have been the case there.

But in England? For 250 Years? No. There were (comparatively brief) periods of savage persecution, but not for 250 years. What source do you have for that? What dates are you referring to?

IIRC history lessons at school, the vast majority of lay Catholics found that if they kept their heads down, paid any fines imposed, conformed outwardly and generally avoided drawing attention to themselves they were tolerated. Indeed, the fines paid by the wealthy families were a good source of income, and the authorities saw no reason to kill the geese that laid golden eggs.

The problem was that Catholics were seen as enemies of the State, so I would argue that persecution was more political than religious. But even that did not continue for 250 years. Many recusant familes still thrive today, far from being hunted down like forest animals.

I am not disregarding the heroism and suffering of Catholic priests, who were indeed hunted. But only for a short period, and mainly because they were seen as enemy agents…

I aplogise for the history lesson, but I didn’t want the impression left that Catholics in England were persecuted for all that time - it simply isn’t true.
 
paperwight66 said:
I really had to blink at this bit of hyperbole, I have to admit, I know very little about Irish history, so it may have been the case there.

But in England? For 250 Years? No. There were (comparatively brief) periods of savage persecution, but not for 250 years. What source do you have for that? What dates are you referring to?

IIRC history lessons at school, the vast majority of lay Catholics found that if they kept their heads down, paid any fines imposed, conformed outwardly and generally avoided drawing attention to themselves they were tolerated. Indeed, the fines paid by the wealthy families were a good source of income, and the authorities saw no reason to kill the geese that laid golden eggs.

The problem was that Catholics were seen as enemies of the State, so I would argue that persecution was more political than religious. But even that did not continue for 250 years. Many recusant familes still thrive today, far from being hunted down like forest animals.

I am not disregarding the heroism and suffering of Catholic priests, who were indeed hunted. But only for a short period, and mainly because they were seen as enemy agents…

I aplogise for the history lesson, but I didn’t want the impression left that Catholics in England were persecuted for all that time - it simply isn’t true.
Click to expand...
There was, of course, some reason for this, stemming from the Papal Bull ‘Regnans in Excelsis’, especially when it was renewed in time for the Armada.

Since England was perpetually squabbling with the Spanish or the French, paranoia about the identification of Catholics with foreign powers was pretty inevitable.
 
Kaninchen said:
There was, of course, some reason for this, stemming from the Papal Bull ‘Regnans in Excelsis’, especially when it was renewed in time for the Armada.

Since England was perpetually squabbling with the Spanish or the French, paranoia about the identification of Catholics with foreign powers was pretty inevitable.
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed. When I was growing up (in a protestant family) I remember feeling that Catholics weren’t quite English even as early as 7 or 8, and I must have got that from somewhere. I wonder, now, whether it was because of Mussolini, as it was in the 50’s and wartime attitudes were still strong. The Latin thing didn’t help much. either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top