Tory Leader Backs End to Law Banning Catholic Monarch (UK)

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stumbler

Guest
Michael Howard has signalled his support for abolishing a centuries-old law banning the monarch becoming or marrying a Catholic.

The Tory leader said he would consider reforms of the present situation if he became prime minister.

In an interview with the Catholic Herald, reported in today’s Daily Telegraph, Mr Howard said he opposed discrimination against any religious group.

He said: “There is no prohibition on the monarch or the monarch’s consort being members of any other religion. So I think it is an anachronism that Catholicism should be singled out.”

The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that anybody who “shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Crown”.

The ban was enforced in the 1701 Act of Settlement, which insisted that the monarch must “join in communion” with the Church of England.

Parliament passed the Act to secure the Protestant succession to the throne at a time when English Catholics were regarded with suspicion and their loyalty was doubted.

The monarch swears to defend “the faith” during the coronation and, as supreme governor of the Church of England, is required to be an Anglican communicant.

Mr Howard did not give a commitment to allow time for a Bill reforming the Act and acknowledged the possible pitfalls.

He said: “Amending it is quite a complicated business, because you have to consult the governments of many Commonwealth countries as well.

“It is something I would certainly consider, and think about, but it is not necessarily something you can make glib promises about because of the complications which exist.”
news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4316993
 
40.png
stumbler:
Michael Howard has signalled his support for abolishing a centuries-old law banning the monarch becoming or marrying a Catholic.

The Tory leader said he would consider reforms of the present situation if he became prime minister.

In an interview with the Catholic Herald, reported in today’s Daily Telegraph, Mr Howard said he opposed discrimination against any religious group.

He said: “There is no prohibition on the monarch or the monarch’s consort being members of any other religion. So I think it is an anachronism that Catholicism should be singled out.”

The Bill of Rights of 1689 states that anybody who “shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the Crown”.

The ban was enforced in the 1701 Act of Settlement, which insisted that the monarch must “join in communion” with the Church of England.

Parliament passed the Act to secure the Protestant succession to the throne at a time when English Catholics were regarded with suspicion and their loyalty was doubted.

The monarch swears to defend “the faith” during the coronation and, as supreme governor of the Church of England, is required to be an Anglican communicant.

Mr Howard did not give a commitment to allow time for a Bill reforming the Act and acknowledged the possible pitfalls.

He said: “Amending it is quite a complicated business, because you have to consult the governments of many Commonwealth countries as well.

“It is something I would certainly consider, and think about, but it is not necessarily something you can make glib promises about because of the complications which exist.”
news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4316993
Click to expand...
**Saw this pig yesterday, 20,000 feet and still climbing!!! 😃 **
 
Uh considering the future leader of their church Prince Charles doesn’t practice his faith anymore and he won’t be marring in the church anytime soon. What the heck does this out of date law have to do with religion and poltics anymore its not like the Royal family and politicians in Europe give a hoot about their faith lives anyway.
The press in Europe practiacally laughs at American Presidents for mentioning god they thought Carter, Reagan, and especially Bush are some weird religious zealots who have the audactiy to metnion God is a speech.
Protestant Engalnd doesn’t care about religion anymore but they still can’t wait to stick it to the catholics whenever they can they just love to descriminate. No wonder the Irish Catholcis still disdain them.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Uh considering the future leader of their church Prince Charles doesn’t practice his faith anymore and he won’t be marring in the church anytime soon. What the heck does this out of date law have to do with religion and poltics anymore its not like the Royal family and politicians in Europe give a hoot about their faith lives anyway.
The press in Europe practiacally laughs at American Presidents for mentioning god they thought Carter, Reagan, and especially Bush are some weird religious zealots who have the audactiy to metnion God is a speech.
Protestant Engalnd doesn’t care about religion anymore but they still can’t wait to stick it to the catholics whenever they can they just love to descriminate. No wonder the Irish Catholcis still disdain them.
Click to expand...
Dear friend

I’m not saying what you say is wrong, but there are plenty of UK Catholics, not that I care which country I am in, I am Catholic wherever I go or am.

The Protestant church is in a big dilemma, many of the vicars not liking the fact that women have been ordained vicars and a whole lot of arguing always going on about their doctrine. Many of the Protestant vicars have left the church and are taking orders in the Catholic church

My mother is an irish Catholic and lives in the UK. We have friends of different religions and some of no religion.

To go about distaining people and hating them is no way to live. I know people laugh at my faith, but that doesn’t make them right to do that.

Anyway, what I am wondering is why Michael Howard is so interested in religion all of sudden? Does anyone know?

I am a little suspicious of him.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Uh considering the future leader of their church Prince Charles doesn’t practice his faith anymore and he won’t be marring in the church anytime soon. What the heck does this out of date law have to do with religion and poltics anymore its not like the Royal family and politicians in Europe give a hoot about their faith lives anyway.
The press in Europe practiacally laughs at American Presidents for mentioning god they thought Carter, Reagan, and especially Bush are some weird religious zealots who have the audactiy to metnion God is a speech.
Protestant Engalnd doesn’t care about religion anymore but they still can’t wait to stick it to the catholics whenever they can they just love to descriminate. No wonder the Irish Catholcis still disdain them.
Click to expand...
Actually, Maccabees, and with respect, the Queen is reputed to be quite devout in her faith. I know it isn’t our faith precisely, but she is a Christian. I attended two Masses in England, one in a parish church in Walton where the youth choir blew the congregation away with their inspired singing, and one in Westminster Cathedral, where the Mass of Paul VI was celebrated with Latin plain song thrown in. Very beautiful.
 
I’m having problems reconciling two sentances in the article:
40.png
stumbler:
He said: “There is no prohibition on the monarch or the monarch’s consort being members of any other religion. So I think it is an anachronism that Catholicism should be singled out.”
…

The monarch swears to defend “the faith” during the coronation and, as supreme governor of the Church of England, is required to be an Anglican communicant.
Click to expand...
Catholicism may be singled out, but all other religions are as well. If you require the monarch to be an Anglican, you are prohibitting them from being any other faith. Unless you remove that particular title and duties of the monarch, the monarch is a religious figure, no?
 
40.png
stumbler:
Have you tried decaf, my friend?
Click to expand...
Obviously somebody who is not aware of British humour.
Lets try to explain.

In the UK when you hear someone say something so ridiculous it is a nonsense, (and believe me Michael Howard saying anything remotely sane is as likely as an American from this forum voting Democrat) the normal response is “Yes, and pigs might fly”. Brit humour you see, bit sophistictaed for most I know, but never mind, given another couple of century’s and you may catch up.😉
 
40.png
Norwich:
Obviously somebody who is not aware of British humour.
Lets try to explain.

In the UK when you hear someone say something so ridiculous it is a nonsense, (and believe me Michael Howard saying anything remotely sane is as likely as an American from this forum voting Democrat) the normal response is “Yes, and pigs might fly”. Brit humour you see, bit sophistictaed for most I know, but never mind, given another couple of century’s and you may catch up.😉
Click to expand...
Hey now! It only took us about 70 years…

phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/5/messages/1558.html

The saying is just as popular, however old, in the US. I got a chuckle from your post. “Donkey’s years” is not well known here, but my wife uses it quite a lot (I told her about it after one of my business trips, and she apparently liked it. 🙂 )

I consider myself to be conservative, but I did have a funny look on my face when I read Mr. Howard’s comments. Is there a Catholic in line for the throne anytime soon? What is his current concern other than trying to stir up religious debate?

Please enlighten me, as you are closer to the action. BTW…I do mean enlighten me with the way his comments are being covered. I’m sure I can guess a couple of one-liners you could throw out. 😃

God Bless,

Robert.
 
40.png
Norwich:
Obviously somebody who is not aware of British humour.
Lets try to explain.

In the UK when you hear someone say something so ridiculous it is a nonsense, (and believe me Michael Howard saying anything remotely sane is as likely as an American from this forum voting Democrat) the normal response is “Yes, and pigs might fly”.
Click to expand...
And obviously not all Brits are wits.:rolleyes:
40.png
Norwich:
Brit humour you see, bit sophistictaed for most I know, but never mind, given another couple of century’s and you may catch up.😉
Click to expand...
Your idea of “sophistictaed” humour requires the use of a large bold font? How utterly droll. Britain is in worse shape then I imagined. :eek:

Less coffee and more sleep will help you out. 👍
 
40.png
Maccabees:
No wonder the Irish Catholcis still disdain them.
Click to expand...
Nah, Liz is a pretty decent. It’s not her fault her ancestors shouldn’t have been trusted with more than a farthing, let alone a crown. And overall, she’s been pretty good to Catholics. Now she has ‘presided’ over some awful governments, but again, not her fault.

And there plenty of reason to dislike Charles without having to throw ‘discrimination’ into the mix. 😉
 
Guys you know what this means, right?

This TOTALLY clears the way for me to marry Prince William and establish a Catholic Monarchy. All my friends at CA will be invited to our wedding! :love: 😃 😉

And yes Norwich, I know this is just as likely to happen as an American CA member voting Democrat.

(Did I mention I voted for Kerry? 😃 ha! Maybe pigs will fly darling!)
 
40.png
JKirkLVNV:
Actually, Maccabees, and with respect, the Queen is reputed to be quite devout in her faith. I know it isn’t our faith precisely, but she is a Christian. I attended two Masses in England, one in a parish church in Walton where the youth choir blew the congregation away with their inspired singing, and one in Westminster Cathedral, where the Mass of Paul VI was celebrated with Latin plain song thrown in. Very beautiful.
Click to expand...
I believe that (the Queen is religious) its the future leader of the church, Charles that is problematic.
 
40.png
Norwich:
My friend, your talking out of the wrong end.
Click to expand...
Correction Your listening with the wrong end.

I know you hate all countries not named England but their are other countries that see your religious persecution for what it is.
An embarassment.
 
40.png
Maccabees:
Correction Your listening with the wrong end.

I know you hate all countries not named England but their are other countries that see your religious persecution for what it is.
An embarassment.
Click to expand...
sorry? Didn’t you know, I’m Irish!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top