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.
Rolltide said:
"Centuries of British royal discrimination came to an end Friday
Click to expand...
Why worry about egalitarianism in an institution that is inherently anti egalitarian. This is just the latest step on the way to the total destruction of the throne.
If its discriminatory to keep a first born woman off the throne in favor of her younger brother, then why is it not discriminatory to keep a second or third born child off the throne. Or why keep the monarch as the head of the church. Or why keep just one monarch. Really that is unfair to everyone else. Why does the monarch have to come from this one particular bloodline or line of succession. Or really why bother with a monarch at all. We are all equal so we should all be monarchs of great Britain and all the churches and religions should be the established ones. Or really why stop at just England. Why not let women be popes in the name of equality?

This change in the law is going to open a can of worms that will devour centuries old tradition.
 
Formosus said:
Why worry about egalitarianism in an institution that is inherently anti egalitarian. This is just the latest step on the way to the total destruction of the throne.
If its discriminatory to keep a first born woman off the throne in favor of her younger brother, then why is it not discriminatory to keep a second or third born child off the throne. Or why keep the monarch as the head of the church. Or why keep just one monarch. Really that is unfair to everyone else. Why does the monarch have to come from this one particular bloodline or line of succession. Or really why bother with a monarch at all. We are all equal so we should all be monarchs of great Britain and all the churches and religions should be the established ones. Or really why stop at just England. Why not let women be popes in the name of equality?

This change in the law is going to open a can of worms that will devour centuries old tradition.
Click to expand...
I was actually thinking along these lines, but I didn’t take the thought as far.
But really…if they don’t want to be “sexist,” why are they being ageist?
 
Prince Charles should NEVER be king. His own great-uncle, King Edward VIII, abdicated the throne “to marry the woman he loved”, a divorced woman, Wallis Simpson. If Queen Elizabeth’s own uncle could not be king because he married a divorced woman, Prince Charles should not be king either. The people of the United Kingdom should have better memories of their history.
 
barb_finnegan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Because if history has shown us anything, it’s that Mary, Elizabeth, and Victoria were unfit to lead England… :rolleyes:
 
paperwight66 said:
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?
Click to expand...
For that matter, Henry would have had Mary, and there would have been no need for a divorce in the first place.
 
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...
Queen Victoria and Queen Mary I, n’est-ce pas?
 
Stylteralmaldo said:
If Wills and Kate have a girl first, she’ll be queen! Commonwealth agrees historic change to give sex equality in Royal succession
  • 300-year rule scrapped as first-born, whatever gender, will take the throne
  • Reforms also overturn law that bans monarch from marrying a Catholic
  • Queen tells Australia summit that women have power to change the world
Read more: dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2054467/Prince-William-Kate-Middletons-child-throne–girl.html#ixzz1c6JcbHvk
Click to expand...
They should keep the male succession rule for the sake of tradition.

If the monarch has no power, it doesn’t matter if its discriminatory.
 
Garyjohn2 said:
I think they should keep the sons thing. Does that make me deviant? 😊
Click to expand...
Why? Why are men more fit to rule than women by virtue of their gender?

I really am not so sure what is so great about the marrying Catholics thing. The monarch is the head of the C of E. What devout Catholic is going to marry outside the Church and raise their children Anglican?
 
To marry outside the church, the catholic needs permission of the local bishop.
 
I wonder how long Britain will hang on to this Monarchy thing?🤷
 
I’d rather see Britain as a monarchy than as a republic.

Long live the Queen!
 
Oh, yes, I heard about the election of the new Irish president. He’s 70 years old and a poet. Good thing the Irish didn’t elect the homosexual guy! Is the new president a practicing Catholic?

I’m curious about the pronunciation of ‘taisoeach’…I know that it’s a Gaelic word. I’ve never heard it said, on the ‘telly’ in England or on the radio (I listen to the BBC World News Service at night).
 
You’re correct that it is their business. I’ve got no skin in the game. They seem to do fine with it.

But one man’s king is another man’s dictator.
 
Neither. I much prefer to have even a miniscule say in who is my leader. I don’t think lineage is a valid method to choose leaders. I’m sure many North Koreans agree with me.
 
I’m not comparing NK to UK. Just the idea that lineage is a poor method to choose one’s leaders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top