Legitimacy of the British monarch

[rose321]

When Queen Elizabeth met Pope Francis she did not wear black

Respectfully not talking about when the Queen meet with Pope Francis, but when she meet the Pope’s long long before him as photos above show her all dressed in black . Thank you. Peace

 

[PetraG]

I think black attire for women meeting the Pope (other than the Queen of Spain, for instance) is only for particular formal situations. The Pope is not greeted by crowds of women in black every time he goes out. Most of the women he meets are not in black.

 

[ltwin]

The fact is that the succession to the throne is determined by the Act of Settlement 1701, an Act of Parliament passed into law by King William III. William III himself, of course, came to the throne, together with his wife Mary II, in an anti-Catholic revolution, replacing our last Catholic monarch, James II. The question is, by what authority did William and Mary come to the throne? By what authority was James II legitimately deposed?

According to Whig political theory, even monarchs derive their powers ultimately from the people themselves. James II broke the social contract (John Locke) and so the people (through their representatives in Parliament) were justified in replacing him.

 

[PickyPicky]

James II broke the social contract (John Locke) and so the people (through their representatives in Parliament) were justified in replacing him.

Yep, although I doubt if @Londoner will necessarily be convinced that having a son by a Catholic wife counts as a breach of the social contract; (to the Whigs it was not just a breach but a threat to the social fabric, of course).

 

[Rob2]

(name removed by moderator)

Rob2:

When Queen Elizabeth met Pope Francis she did not wear black

Respectfully not talking about when the Queen meet with Pope Francis, but when she meet the Pope’s long long before him as photos above show her all dressed in black . Thank you. Peace

That’s ok , but (name removed by moderator) gave you the link below in post 141 . It was protocol for women to wear black when having an audience with the Pope . Privilège du blanc - Wikipedia

 

[niceatheist]

i agree, England, historically, was a Catholic nation until the reign of King Henry VIII and he became impatient with the Pope and started his own church. it is a tragedy what happened after that. when the Protestants were ruling, the Catholic suffered terribly. yes, the king took all the property that had belonged to the Catholic Church.
it is all history. the Spanish Armada was defeated. Mary, Queen of Scotts, was beheaded before she could have any chance of ruling. the Protestants prevailed and outlawed Catholicism for a certain period of time.
we can only imagine what might have been, what a great Catholic country, England might have been.
all the religious pageantry is very valid in their eyes within the Church of England.

This is a bit of a compression of history. Henry VIII severed ties with Rome, but theologically he remained Catholic his entire life. It was his son Edward VI who made the Church of England a Protestant church, and Mary I wasn’t on the throne long enough to undo that. In reality, Protestantism had been making inroads in England for quite some time, so I’d say it was inevitable.

As to Mary Queen of Scots, well her own son sold her up the river, because, Scotland, like England was becoming overwhelmingly Protestant. You seem to espouse the traditional view that figures like Henry VIII and Elizabeth I made the Isle of Britain predominantly Protestant, but in many respects they were simply reflecting the change in the wider society. Let’s remember that Protestantism in large part arose because of real and perceived abuses by the Church. To someone pondering becoming a Protestant in the 16th century, it’s not as if Rome represented some vast and honorable edifice; it was viewed as corrupt, self-serving, more interested in playing political games on the Continent, and had really collapsed in Britain and Northern Europe as any kind of moral authority.

 

[7_Sorrows]

7_Sorrows:

i agree, England, historically, was a Catholic nation until the reign of King Henry VIII and he became impatient with the Pope and started his own church. it is a tragedy what happened after that. when the Protestants were ruling, the Catholic suffered terribly. yes, the king took all the property that had belonged to the Catholic Church.
it is all history. the Spanish Armada was defeated. Mary, Queen of Scotts, was beheaded before she could have any chance of ruling. the Protestants prevailed and outlawed Catholicism for a certain period of time.
we can only imagine what might have been, what a great Catholic country, England might have been.
all the religious pageantry is very valid in their eyes within the Church of England.

This is a bit of a compression of history. Henry VIII severed ties with Rome, but theologically he remained Catholic his entire life. It was his son Edward VI who made the Church of England a Protestant church, and Mary I wasn’t on the throne long enough to undo that. In reality, Protestantism had been making inroads in England for quite some time, so I’d say it was inevitable.

As to Mary Queen of Scots, well her own son sold her up the river, because, Scotland, like England was becoming overwhelmingly Protestant. You seem to espouse the traditional view that figures like Henry VIII and Elizabeth I made the Isle of Britain predominantly Protestant, but in many respects they were simply reflecting the change in the wider society. Let’s remember that Protestantism in large part arose because of real and perceived abuses by the Church. To someone pondering becoming a Protestant in the 16th century, it’s not as if Rome represented some vast and honorable edifice; it was viewed as corrupt, self-serving, more interested in playing political games on the Continent, and had really collapsed in Britain and Northern Europe as any kind of moral authority.

i don’t have the space or time on CAF to give the complete history of England from the time King Henry VIII broke with Rome. being Catholic was important to the king.
the Pope had given him the title of Defender of the Faith because Henry defended the Catholic faith against what Luther was doing. of course, Protestantism was spreading across Europe and some of the King’s wives were secretly following the Protestant ways and influenced the upbringing of Edward and Elizabeth when it came to religion. only Mary, Catherine’s daughter, remained Catholic.
The King James Bible was named after Mary, Queen of Scots’ son who had the Bible
translated to English.
i believe most know the history of why the Protestant Reformation began. my point had been that England had a rich Catholic history before the Reformation.

 

[niceatheist]

i don’t have the space or time on CAF to give the complete history of England from the time King Henry VIII broke with Rome. being Catholic was important to the king.
the Pope had given him the title of Defender of the Faith because Henry defended the Catholic faith against what Luther was doing. of course, Protestantism was spreading across Europe and some of the King’s wives were secretly following the Protestant ways and influenced the upbringing of Edward and Elizabeth when it came to religion. only Mary, Catherine’s daughter, remained Catholic.
The King James Bible was named after Mary, Queen of Scots’ son who had the Bible
translated to English.
i believe most know the history of why the Protestant Reformation began. my point had been that England had a rich Catholic history before the Reformation.

And my point is that Britain and Northern Europe were already in the full throes of the Reformation, on the ground, irrespective of the sentiments of any given Prince (though many Northern European princes happily used that sentiment as a means with breaking with Rome). Further, I have to underline the larger point that the Church in the Early Modern Period had brought itself into disrepute. It had ceased to have the moral authority in significant parts of Europe. Protestantism, like its Early Christian predecessor, grew in the shadows, becoming more popular with the lower classes, in particular the mercantile classes (much as Early Christianity made surprisingly effective in roads in to the wealthier and aristocratic Roman circles in its time).

The Church has to bear a considerable amount of responsibility for the Reformation. It ceased to speak to the common folk, had spent a lot of its political capital on trying to maintain a degree of control over the Holy Roman Empire and other European principalities, while meanwhile debasing the Papacy itself. A lot of Catholics seem to just skip over the Church in that period, and fixate on Luther and the other early Protestant reformers as basically Satan incarnated in the flesh.

 

[7_Sorrows]

we will never know what would have happened to England if the king had not wanted his annulment. with the printing press and Bibles being smuggled in for the people to read and protestant literature printed, Protestantism could not be stopped. it did force the Catholic church to begin the Counter-Reformation. most Catholics are very aware of church history and the abuses that had been happening for some time. the Catholic church is not afraid to speak about this moment in history. however, Catholics were not allowed to practice their faith, you had to pay a fine if you did not attend services on Sunday in the Church of England. monasteries were dissolved and the king took the churches and lands and properties that really belongef to Rome.
the monks in the monasteries had helped feed the poor and took care of the sick.
priests were smuggled into England in order to try to make the Mass secretly available as they travelled around England and were hidden in specially constructed
priest holes in homes of the wealthy. if found, they were tortured and killed.
this went on for close to 200 years.

 

[GKMotley]

This is an over simplification. Henry remained mostly Catholic, with a number of excursions into Individualistic Theology a le Roi, some playing footsie with the Lutherans, and gentle nudging from wife #6, in particular. I suggest Scarisbrick (as I often do), HENRY VIII, esp. chapter XII, “The Royal Supremacy and Theology”.

Your last para, ultimate sentence, seems a little sweeping.

 

[GKMotley]

Is it time and place, here and now, to revisit the story of Defensor Fidei?

 

[7_Sorrows]

perhaps…i will leave the decision to you…if you have the time.

 

[GKMotley]

Hmmm. We could take a vote.

 

[ltwin]

Yep, although I doubt if @Londoner will necessarily be convinced that having a son by a Catholic wife counts as a breach of the social contract; (to the Whigs it was not just a breach but a threat to the social fabric, of course).

Well, as I remember it, it was the king’s proroguing Parliament and unilaterally declaring religious toleration that was the actual breach of the social contract. Of course, anti-Catholic prejudice was involved, but James didn’t do himself any favors by attempting to rule without Parliament. He literally chose to become a tyrant.

And then of course, once a group of nobles asked William of Orange to invade, James had no reliable army or navy (since he had pissed off everyone) and was forced to abandon his people and country. Parliament, of course, considered that a voluntary abdication giving them at least a plausible reason for choosing a new king.

 

[rose321]

I think black attire for women meeting the Pope (other than the Queen of Spain, for instance) is only for particular formal situations. The Pope is not greeted by crowds of women in black every time he goes out. Most of the women he meets are not in black.

Respectfully thanks PetraG! But speaking about not when the Pope goes out or meets with most woman, but when world Leaders with their wives, from around the world go and meet with the Pope, their wives, men themselves are all dressed in black. Can put all the photos taken when they meet with the Pope, all out there. Thank you again, found out the reason why by another poster. Peace

 

[PetraG]

Respectfully thanks PetraG! But speaking about not when the Pope goes out or meets with most woman, but when world Leaders with their wives, from around the world go and meet with the Pope, their wives, men themselves are all dressed in black. Can put all the photos taken when they meet with the Pope, all out there. Thank you again, found out the reason why by another poster. Peace

Thanks…I found the Pope relaxed the rules for the Queen, who typically wears a solid bright color with a matching hat, so that she’s easy to spot in a crowd. Since the dress code has already been relaxed for men, it may be a thing of the past before this papacy ends–or, well, I mean the dress code to meet the Pope may not be different than the dress code to visit St. Peter’s. I don’t think anyone thinks the expectation of modesty for a state visit is going to change.

 

[ThisOne]

Nothing the Church of England does can be pleasing to the Catholic Church, unless it is reversing its heresy and coming home.

 

[PickyPicky]

Nothing the Church of England does can be pleasing to the Catholic Church, unless it is reversing its heresy and coming home.

When the Church of England feeds the hungry, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England educates children, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England baptises Christians, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England sends its chaplains to the sick, the wounded and the dying, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? When the Church of England and the Catholic Church work in partnership to combat modern slavery, that is not pleasing to the Catholic Church? I suggest you are mistaken.

 

[Rob2]

:laughing:Madame Tussauds has completed its waxwork of soon-to-be royal bride Meghan Markle.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ThisOne]

I was speaking hyperbolically, of course, and in the realm of official acts as a church. The church itself doesn’t feed the hungry, I might add. Its people might, but that’s not the church qua church.