Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Church Blocks Reforms Over Royal Marriage [Royals Can Marry Muslims But NOT Catholics]
Telegraph(UK) ^ | April 24, 2011 | Rosa Prince

Posted on 04/24/2011 4:00:35 PM PDT by Steelfish

Church Blocks Reforms Over Royal Marriages The Church of England has blocked a Government move to scrap a centuries-old law which prevents members of the Royal family from marrying Roman Catholics, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

If the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, they would ultimately be answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican. 24 Apr 2011

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, began work towards repealing the 1701 Act of Settlement, under which heirs to the throne must renounce their claim on marrying a Roman Catholic, in order to introduce full equality between the faiths. Talks were held with the Anglican Church as part of wider discussions on constitutional reform, which come under his remit as Deputy Prime Minister.

The reforms have also led to steps being made towards securing the agreement of the Commonwealth to end the common law principle of male primogeniture, under which the younger sons of royalty have precedence over their older sisters. However, the plan to abolish the Act of Settlement was quietly shelved after the Church raised significant objections centring on the British sovereign’s dual role as Supreme Governor.

Church leaders expressed concern that if a future heir to the throne married a Roman Catholic, their children would be required by canon law to be brought up in that faith. This would result in the constitutionally problematic situation whereby the Supreme Governor of the Church of England was a Roman Catholic, and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader, the Pope, and the Vatican. There is no similar prohibition on the Royal family marrying members of other faiths such as Islam and Judaism, or those who are openly agnostic or atheist.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: anglican; catholic; coe; crown; europeanchristians; islam; nickclegg; royals; ukmuslims
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2011 4:00:38 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Of course the simple and most logical explanation for this is that Roman Catholics do not crash planes into buildings and behead people when they get pissed off.


2 posted on 04/24/2011 4:02:50 PM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

So Diana shagging Abu Doody Poopie is all good now.

I probably spelled his name incorrectly.


3 posted on 04/24/2011 4:04:30 PM PDT by humblegunner (Blogger Overlord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

They think you can marry a Muslim and not have the kids brought up Muslim? Maybe they’d better think twice.

British anti-Catholiocism is very, very strong. And the present Archbishop of Canterbury seems to think that Muslims are admirable.


4 posted on 04/24/2011 4:05:15 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

I would like to see Britain renounce all royalty and establish themselves as a capitalist republic (like America used to be). Instead of restoring the kings and queens they would devote their time and efforts to productivity and profit. They might even regain their stature in the Western World.


5 posted on 04/24/2011 4:08:13 PM PDT by Rapscallion (Obama is a fraud. The founders gave us the tool of impeachment for a reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

Anglican ping


6 posted on 04/24/2011 4:12:09 PM PDT by kalee (The offences we give, we write in the dust; Those we take, we engrave in marble. J Huett 1658)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Are marriages between a Protestant and a Catholic recognized by the Roman Catholic Church; what if performed by Protestant clergy, in a Protestant church? Just asking, I don’t know.


7 posted on 04/24/2011 4:12:42 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Unless they change the rule and allow a Catholic monarch, this will be the last generation of the monarchy. The Church of England is dying, and what will survive will be reconciled to the Catholic Church. If the Church of England dies, so does one of the reasons for the monarchy itself. It will be swept away along with the discarded church.


8 posted on 04/24/2011 4:22:38 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

A quick look at the history of the British Isles from the late 1500’s through 1690 will explain why the prohibition on Roman Catholics exists. It was a long and bloody series of wars over English self government and Protestant religion.


9 posted on 04/24/2011 4:31:27 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ahadams2; Madeleine; MWS; x_plus_one; bastantebueno55; Needham; sc70; jpr_fire2gold; ...
Thanks to kalee for the ping.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this low-volume ping list.
This list is pinged by sionnsar.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
Humor: The Anglican Blue

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

10 posted on 04/24/2011 4:31:27 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|http://pure-gas.org|Must be a day for changing taglines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pnh102

The purpose of this act is to prevent the Bourbon king of France from obtaining control of the English government.


11 posted on 04/24/2011 4:32:11 PM PDT by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

State religions and monarchies are stupid anachronisms.


12 posted on 04/24/2011 4:35:52 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
British anti-Catholiocism is very, very strong.

Really? Why?
13 posted on 04/24/2011 4:37:45 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
"Unless they change the rule and allow a Catholic monarch, this will be the last generation of the monarchy."

I have this expectation once Elizabeth II passes, Prince Charles and Rowan Williams will both state the shahadah prior to the crowning of Charles. Williams will redesignate Westminster Abbey as the Grand Mosque of Westminster, Williams will crown Charles the King of the Islamic Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and King Charles will declare Williams the Grand Imam of Canterbury, and leader of the official state church of the United Kingdom.

As for what happens with Emir William at that point, I have no idea.

14 posted on 04/24/2011 4:38:21 PM PDT by magellan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rapscallion

You do realize that “republicans” in the UK are left wingers who want to establish a socialist republic, not a republic as we know it? Conservatives in the UK support the Crown.


15 posted on 04/24/2011 4:39:28 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

Whoop. That was centuries ago. Doubt many Brits bother to attend church at all these days. That’s the real problem.


16 posted on 04/24/2011 4:39:32 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

Is? Who is the current king of France?


17 posted on 04/24/2011 4:41:57 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: yup2394871293

I agree with you about chruch attendence in the UK.


18 posted on 04/24/2011 4:43:01 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3
Are marriages between a Protestant and a Catholic recognized by the Roman Catholic Church; what if performed by Protestant clergy, in a Protestant church? Just asking, I don’t know.

The church has to give special permissions, called "dispensations"; one to allow the wedding to take place in a Protestant church, and one to allow the wedding to use the Protestant ceremony.

I'm Catholic, and was married in an Episcopal church. If I can do it, the Royal family can as well. ;-)

WRT children being brought up Catholic, the Vatican has been known to dispense from that requirement for the heirs to thrones in Protestant kingdoms. The Brits could also show a little flexibility and allow a Catholic king (if there were one) to appoint a governor over the CofE to act in his place.

19 posted on 04/24/2011 4:43:38 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

Well, we dumped the UK royals and declared a republic a couple centuries ago. That must mean we’re socialists.


20 posted on 04/24/2011 4:44:31 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
The purpose of this act is to prevent the Bourbon king of France from obtaining control of the English government.

I figured it was the Bourbon King of Spain they were worried about. Oh, wait, there really is a Bourbon King of Spain. My bad. :-0

21 posted on 04/24/2011 4:45:11 PM PDT by Campion ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies when they become fashions." -- GKC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

There are no Bourbon kings any more...


22 posted on 04/24/2011 4:47:23 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
They think you can marry a Muslim and not have the kids brought up Muslim? Maybe they’d better think twice.

Not the issue here. Note:

"...and so ultimately answerable to a separate sovereign leader,"
As Muslims, who would be the "separate sovereign leader" to whom they're answerable?
23 posted on 04/24/2011 4:50:21 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|http://pure-gas.org|Must be a day for changing taglines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Juan Carlos of Spain.


24 posted on 04/24/2011 4:56:46 PM PDT by RichInOC (Palin 2012: The Perfect Storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yup2394871293

I’m talking about “republicans” in the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc. in the present day. Each time the subject comes up, it’s left wingers pushing it. When voted on (Australia 1999, St. Vincent and the Grenadines 2010), it’s left wingers who vote for it, and they lost both times.


25 posted on 04/24/2011 4:59:39 PM PDT by GreenLanternCorps ("Barack Obama" is Swahili for "Jimmy Carter".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Adultery was the foundation of that church, so who cares.


26 posted on 04/24/2011 5:01:01 PM PDT by A CA Guy ( God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
I cry "Shenanigans" on the title of this thread title.

The article never mentions Islam or Muslims.

Yes, presumably a Muslim consort demanding that the children be raised as Muslims would violate the spirit of the Act. (And hence falls in line with conspiracy theories about the U.K. intelligence community somehow being involved with the death of the late Princess of Wales.)

The real question is separation of church and state. If you insist upon conflating the monarchy to the leadership of the Anglican church, then this problem is unsurmountable. Indeed, how can an atheist or a member of any faith other than Anglican Christianity truly carry out the duties of king or queen?

I think that the monarchy is doomed in the long run anyway. I used to support the idea of the British monarchy (even as an American) for being suited to the nation. But I now believe that monarchism is simply too anachronistic to survive.

27 posted on 04/24/2011 5:01:48 PM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
I cry "Shenanigans" on the title of this thread title.

The article never mentions Islam or Muslims.

Yes, presumably a Muslim consort demanding that the children be raised as Muslims would violate the spirit of the Act. (And hence falls in line with conspiracy theories about the U.K. intelligence community somehow being involved with the death of the late Princess of Wales.)

The real question is separation of church and state. If you insist upon conflating the monarchy to the leadership of the Anglican church, then this problem is unsurmountable. Indeed, how can an atheist or a member of any faith other than Anglican Christianity truly carry out the duties of king or queen?

I think that the monarchy is doomed in the long run anyway. I used to support the idea of the British monarchy (even as an American) for being suited to the nation. But I now believe that monarchism is simply too anachronistic to survive.

28 posted on 04/24/2011 5:01:59 PM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru
The article never mentions Islam or Muslims.

Paragraph 5: "There is no similar prohibition on the Royal family marrying members of other faiths such as Islam and Judaism, or those who are openly agnostic or atheist."

29 posted on 04/24/2011 5:09:58 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Of course the simple and most logical explanation for this is that Roman Catholics do not crash planes into buildings and behead people when they get pissed off.

Or at least not any more.

30 posted on 04/24/2011 5:10:20 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (What if God doesn't WANT the Gospel rescued from fundamentalism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RichInOC

He is not a direct descendant of the Bourbon kings just has their blood...

a descendant of a sibling or cousin...

The direct line died out...


31 posted on 04/24/2011 5:12:26 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Yet when Pope Benedict XVI came to Britain last fall to beautified John Henry Neuuman, he was very much well recieved. So that could very much be changing slowly. Also it go away a bit quicker now that there is the “Anglican Rite Usage” as a part of the RC Church.


32 posted on 04/24/2011 5:14:35 PM PDT by Biggirl ("The Best Of Times, The Worse Of Times", Charles Dickens)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
The purpose of this act is to prevent the Bourbon king of France from obtaining control of the English government.

The next King of France will bear the title of "Sultan" or "Ayatollah."

33 posted on 04/24/2011 5:22:09 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GreenLanternCorps

The subject just came up again, and I’m no socialist.


34 posted on 04/24/2011 5:24:40 PM PDT by yup2394871293
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

“There are no Bourbon kings any more...”

I’m a Kentucky Bourbon king. I’m holding court right now.


35 posted on 04/24/2011 5:29:51 PM PDT by RadiationRomeo (Step into my mind and glimpse the madness that is me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RadiationRomeo

Odd, I seem to have a splash here in my French cut glass goblet. Go figure.


36 posted on 04/24/2011 5:34:39 PM PDT by alarm rider (The left will always tell you who they fear the most. What are they telling you now?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Dang you are right— But this idea, of course, makes no sense.


37 posted on 04/24/2011 5:37:15 PM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Yes, I’m hoping it will change. There’s a long history of anti-Catholicism in England, dating back to the Reformation, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, the defeat of the Stuart rebellions, and the colonization of Ireland, to mention just a few of the rough spots.


38 posted on 04/24/2011 5:51:27 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

In the late 1600s...1680-12700 many Huguenots fled from France to Ireland..

From there many came to the US but a lot stayed..

They were given help by the English government because they were Protestants...

and lived in the nicer areas of Dublin etc

About 1706-10 thousands of Palatine Germans were allowed to flee into England

Queen Anne only allowed the Lutherans to stay and sent the Catholics back...

Then when there were at least 10,000 Germans living in the streets and parks and private lawns of London she started sending them elsewhere...

Besides sending 3000 of the Lutheran Palatine Germans to Albany, NY

she also sent about the same number to Ireland...

Later many left Ireland for Canada...

But still today there are many Irish with German ancestors or French Huguenot ancestors...


39 posted on 04/24/2011 6:22:20 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Brits are so inbred, they have gone nuts altogether!


40 posted on 04/24/2011 6:40:05 PM PDT by chooseascreennamepat (I have a liberal arts degree, do you want fries with that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Brits are so inbred, they have gone nuts altogether!


41 posted on 04/24/2011 6:40:12 PM PDT by chooseascreennamepat (I have a liberal arts degree, do you want fries with that?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The Royals are a bunch of clowns! As a Roman Catholic, I think the Pope should set down an edict that any RC stupid enough to get involved with these Euro-trash Royal gangsters should be ex-communicated.


42 posted on 04/24/2011 7:08:37 PM PDT by jazzo (Resistance is Futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I`m Henry the Eighth I am,
I can marry 8 muslim virgins,
Hot Dam!


43 posted on 04/24/2011 7:17:24 PM PDT by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

For that matter, the Brits even agreed to have German kings, rather than risk having a Catholic ruler. The House of Hanover, still on the throne today.


44 posted on 04/24/2011 7:59:19 PM PDT by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user

Henry VIII created the church so he could rule on his marriages, as he went through all them wihtout bothering with the Pope. Protestantism in a purer form was reinforced during the reign of his son Edward VI and during the reign of Mary “Bloody” Tudor there was a reestablishment of Catholicism, but, after the burnings the nation balked at it and Elizabeth I permanently restored Protestantism as it had been meant ot be under her father, one of religious and political compromise. It was done because back then, being a Catholic meant using legal means to enforce the established religion and also meant being able to burn people alive for the slightest lack fo deference to the Host. It hasn’t made anyone happy, as it made both Catholics and Protestants unhappy since it was basically a religious balancing act. It was after the Restoration (reign of Charles the Second) that the Stuarts were suspected of being closet Catholics and James II was tossed off because of his Catholicism and William of Orange and Mary (daughter of James II interestingly) were instated by Parliament in the “Glorious Revolution.” Then an act was created banning Catholics from the Throne permanently and anyone who married a Catholic became banned from the succession. These days, it’s more likely that a Muslim will end up burning people alive for heresy instead of a Catholic. The Church of England was created initially so a monarch could have full say in who was and wasn’t legally married and which heirs were and weren’t legitimate. Then it just became a church for Protestants and a means of declaring and enforcing England’s independence from Papal interference. It has had nothing to do with teh French monarchs claiming the British throne. It was created for the convenience of Henry VIII when he was ruling on all of his marriages and the legal status of his children.


45 posted on 04/24/2011 8:13:57 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Interestingly, while the Monarch was William of Orange, his wife had joint monarch status in her own right, since Queen Mary was the daughter of the overthrown James II. If she had not married William of Orange, Mary would have been Queen of England on her own since Britain does not have Salic Law.


46 posted on 04/24/2011 8:15:49 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lysandru

” I used to support the idea of the British monarchy (even as an American) for being suited to the nation. But I now believe that monarchism is simply too anachronistic to survive.”

What made you change your mind?


47 posted on 04/24/2011 8:17:44 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gusopol3; Bed_Zeppelin; YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; StayoutdaBushesWay; OldNewYork; MotherRedDog; ...
Are marriages between a Protestant and a Catholic recognized by the Roman Catholic Church; what if performed by Protestant clergy, in a Protestant church? Just asking, I don’t know.
Yes, not encouraged, but yes.
48 posted on 04/24/2011 8:20:20 PM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yup2394871293
British anti-Catholiocism is very, very strong.

Really? Why?

Bush's fault.

Sorry.

Had to do it.

:-)

49 posted on 04/24/2011 8:25:33 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru
What made you change your mind?

It started with the antics of the younger members of the House of Windsor. Then there is the sheer cost of the monarchy. And then there is the changing nature and culture of the United Kingdom.

Monarchism assumes that the state is embodied in the sovereign. And in some sense, the royal family has to maintain some semblence (or illusion) of being above the common folk. The younger Windsors fail on the second count. And then one must ask whether or not a cash strapped Britain should pay for the trappings of a monarchy. And how about the changing demographics?

50 posted on 04/25/2011 5:15:20 AM PDT by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson