Skip to comments.Queen's Role as Head of Church of England 'May No Longer Be Appropriate'
Posted on 12/10/2011 12:36:57 PM PST by marshmallow
The Queens role as head of the Church of England may no longer be appropriate following changes to the law of succession, a group of MPs has suggested.
Reforms agreed earlier this year by Commonwealth countries would create a potential conflict of interest because they allow a monarch to marry a Roman Catholic, said a parliamentary committee.
It said that if a future heir to the throne were raised as a Catholic, there would be an obvious difficulty in that person becoming head of the Anglican Church on their succession.
Under current laws, the Queen is required to join in communion with the Church of England and take on the role of Supreme Governor, promoting Anglicanism in Britain.
The report, by the political and constitutional reform committee, said: The scenario does beg the question of whether it remains appropriate for the monarch to be required to be in communion with the Church of England.
The most obvious difficulty in having a Catholic monarch beyond the purely statutory obstacles is the Crowns role as supreme governor of the Church of England. The MPs said that Parliament may wish to consider the current relationship between the monarch and the Church of England.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
With all the real problems England has and they’re worried about this? Come on. Henry VIII made up the position so he could divorce, marry and behead as many wives as he wished. Henry was still Catholic afterward, not Protestant.
At this point they should abolish the royalty and the CoE in one fell swoop
You can say good things about the Modern Age, and you can say bad things about the Modern Age.
What we see now (in a great many respects) is the closing of the Modern Age -- and with that will come a whole new series of alterations in societies and government across Europe and the world.
Not to be rude, but what a foolish, ignorant statement.
The Church of England, like it or not, is England's largest bastion of Christianity left. Probably 1/3 of Church goers in England--and that would be CoE Church goers, are evangelical--in a society where less than 5% attend church. The CoE, as flawed as it is....(and yes, it is very flawed) is the "last best hope" for England.
Now, if by abolishing the CoE you mean, dis-establishment...that may well be a good thing. Part of the reason the CoE is as feckless as it is, is the Archbishop of Canterbury is appointed by Parliment...hence is a political appointment. This makes for the appointment of other bishops as well political...and vast amounts of political correctness ensue (very politely, of course).
As to abolishing the royalty--my ancestors saw to that here 230 years ago...
I mean that the CoE should not be a government owned and run “church”
“As to abolishing the royalty—my ancestors saw to that here 230 years ago...”
And the pomp and circumstance that surrounds the President, indicates that you and yours have been regretting that ever since.
Amazing the Brits obsession with Monarchy..
But really Monarch and Democracy are BOTH MOB RULE by mobsters..
The Brits have never known anything but Mob Rule by mobsters.. they know no better..
Same with the Canadians.. Irish, Welch, and Scots..
I’d rather restore the monarchy that Parliament ousted in the first place.
The current policy is an antiquated relic of a byegone age. By all rights, the current ruler should be the Jacobite pretender.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
By all rights, the current ruler should be the Jacobite pretender.
Why would we want that dithering, effeminate, creation in charge?
He had his chance and blew it.
As for Charles 1st, well he was what obama would like to be!
Thanks all the same, but Elisabeth is fine for now.
Invite a little Protestant bashing. That will make the season bright.
“Why would we want that dithering, effeminate, creation in charge?”
As opposed to devastatingly handsome and virile Prince of Wales.
“He had his chance and blew it.”
Which is why the descendents of Queen Anne thrived? Oh wait. That’s not what the Act of Settlement is all about.
Sophie is well down the list of the legitimate claimants to the throne of England. Not only are the Jabobites ahead of them, but so are most of the heirs of the Princess of the Palatinate.
“Thanks all the same, but Elisabeth is fine for now.”
Her entire claim to the throne is by the Act of Settlement. If that goes away than so does her claim to the throne.
Here’s Prince Alois, and Princess Sophie. Her son Joseph would be the next in line to the Jacobite succession.
The current heir, Franz, prince of Bavaria is a holocaust survivor. He survived Dachau, where he was imprisoned by Nazi Germany.
It’s already happening in my opinion.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds as time goes by.
All of this would have to be signed by Elisabeth.
The best solution would be to separate the Monarch from the church, then the problem would be solved, no?
On the photo opportunity side of things, I have to agree with you there!
It’s all tied together unfortunately. The Act of Settlement barred Catholics from inheriting. That’s why so many others were passed over in favor of Sophia, the electress of Hanover.
It doesn’t make sense to remove the prohibition and retain the present monarch.
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.