|
|
Post by sullyo on Mar 26, 2008 1:42:18 GMT
Gordon Brown said he is prepared to consider abolishing the Act of Settlement, which bans Catholics from becoming King or Queen. I cant understand why the Monarch is not allowed to marry a Catholic, this should at least be changed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boris on Mar 26, 2008 12:45:59 GMT
One cannot even begin to understand the reasons for this without a working knowledge of history viv-a-vis the Crown, the Church and the Reformation.
Assume for a minute, a Monarch marrying a Catholic and who's children are raised in the mother's religion. The Prince who will follow his father on the throne and become Supreme Governor of the Church of England - is a Catholic? What a ridiculous situation and untenable. The Act of Succession must stay!
Incidentally, I assume therefore that you are calling for the formal title of the King of Spain - Hs Most Catholic Majesty to be changed or does this only apply to the British Monarchy?
|
|
|
|
Post by sullyo on Mar 26, 2008 13:55:54 GMT
I wonder how James II was allowed to become King and head of the church of England when he was a catholic? England at that time was very anti catholic yet James had no problem at first as head of the Anglian church .So if he was allowed to become head of the church of England why cant it be allowed again.?
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 26, 2008 23:34:21 GMT
What is it about the UK's Act of Settlement that causes it to be raised from time to time on this Board?
The United Kingdom is not the only monarchy to stipulate the religion of the king or queen. For example, the King of Cambodia must be a "fervent Buddhist," though in Thailand he needs only to be a Buddhist. The King/Queen of Norway must be an Evangelical Lutheran (as must be the majority of his/her advisers), and the two other Scandinavian monarchies have similar stipulations.
In all Islamic countries, of course, the King must be Muslim because Islam sees no separation between religion and state.
The Head of the State of the Vatican City (i.e., the Pope) must be Catholic and unmarried.
In the 1978 Spanish Constitution, the monarchy establishment clause does not specify that the King nor Spain need be of any religion, nor especially Catholic. The Dutch, Belgian, and Luxembourg Constitutions similarly have no statement about the sovereign's religion. In Liechtenstein and Monaco the Roman Catholic Church is the national church, so I assume the reigning prince must be Catholic.
So, I repeat, what is so special about the UK's arrangements?
|
|
|
|
Post by Boris on Mar 27, 2008 16:05:15 GMT
I agree with you Observer - why it is only the UK that is mentioned, I fail to understand.
There is also precedence - how many Irish or Italian presidents have been confirmed Congregationalists – there is no law stating in what faith they must worship? In spite of Spain's constitution, His Catholic Majesty is highly unlikely to be a practising Presbyterian, now is he?
As for James II, he managed to cling to his throne for only 3 years, to be succeeded by his daughter and I doubt he was a de facto Supreme Governor, considering the times. But, even if he was, does that mean that by the same token that the Pope could be an Anglican?
Isn’t sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander too?
|
|
|
|
Post by sullyo on Mar 27, 2008 17:07:56 GMT
I did not think certain topics were off limit here, and as its in the news i decided to ask that question. And i do not like your attitude , perhaps Cinderella could comment on your responses ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Mar 27, 2008 19:15:16 GMT
I think Sullyo was commenting on his view of the situation in the UK, not on the Vatican or Saudi Arabia. I think this is an interesting topic and worthy of discussion.
However, remember that religious debate isn't allowed on the board (see the Board Rules). I don't want to close the thread, so I hope this can be discussed in an open and friendly manner.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Mar 27, 2008 20:44:43 GMT
I wonder how James II was allowed to become King and head of the church of England when he was a catholic? His two daughters were Protestants and were married to Protestants. James II was deposed when his Catholic wife gave birth to a son. |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 27, 2008 23:29:37 GMT
I wonder how James II was allowed to become King and head of the church of England when he was a catholic? England at that time was very anti catholic yet James had no problem at first as head of the Anglian church .So if he was allowed to become head of the church of England why cant it be allowed again.? I think the answer to that is simple: at the time there was no law against Catholics becoming sovereigns, even though many English people (and Scots, of course, as he was also King of Scotland) were anti-Catholic. In other words, there was no legal or constitutional bar to his accession? |
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Mar 28, 2008 9:01:27 GMT
I think the answer to that is simple: at the time there was no law against Catholics becoming sovereigns, even though many English people (and Scots, of course, as he was also King of Scotland) were anti-Catholic. In other words, there was no legal or constitutional bar to his accession? An Exclusion Bill was passed by the Commons but Charles II prevented it from becoming law by dissolving Parliament. As a result of this conflict, political parties emerged in England for the first time. encyclopedia.jrank.org/WAT_WIL/WHIG_AND_TORY.html |
|
queenk
Member of the Court
Posts: 53
|
Post by queenk on Apr 6, 2008 20:43:55 GMT
I support the idea of abolishing the Act of Settlement but what does that mean for someone like Peter Phillips who recently lost his rights due to marrying a Catholic? Or the Kents for being Catholic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aidan Work on Apr 14, 2008 2:32:52 GMT
The idea of repealing the Act of Settlement is a very dangerous one,as it will open a huge Pandora's Box.As one who is a Protestant,I don't like the idea of the British Dominions having a Romanist monarch.King James II of England/VII of Scotland was a terrible monarch who was deservedly overthrown.
I would have no problem with the British monarch being a Presbyterian,even though I am an Anglican.
Repealing the Act of Settlement could spark off moves to break up the United Kingdom.Although I am of Scots descent,I am opposed to the idea of an independent Scotland,especially a Scotland that is Angliphobic.
Aidan.
|
|
queenk
Member of the Court
Posts: 53
|
Post by queenk on Apr 20, 2008 14:37:31 GMT
Maybe they could make a law saying that the monarch him or herself has to be an Anglican but their spouse can be any religion since they don't get to rule seperately anyway, and of course if their children chooses Anglican they can stay in line and just give the children who convert a constant "prince, princess, lord, lady, etc" title.
As an American I see no problem in breaking up the UK, there will still be a lot of solit(sp) among them.
|
|
|
|
Post by donald1941 on Apr 21, 2008 22:03:50 GMT
There would be a problem if the king's spouse was Roman Catholic when it came to the coronation. She couldn't be crowned with him in what is essentially an Anglican ceremony. It wouldn't prevent her from being Queen but would mean she would be restricted in some of the ceremonies the monarch performs, such as the Maudy ceremony and such. While these wouldn't be unsurmountable circumstances they would be problems.
|
|
queenk
Member of the Court
Posts: 53
|
Post by queenk on Apr 27, 2008 14:44:00 GMT
Well with all due respect, the coronation is merely pomp and circumstance. true the King or Queen is head of the church but they aren't like a dictator of the church, they don't make all the rules and laws in the church, it's delegated to Archbishops, seperate churches (such as the Espicopalians in America) in all of the world. So even then I don't see a problem with it, especially since in theory the spouse could be any other religion.
|
|
