 |
|
Dauphin
|
 |
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
1) If the Monarchy remained but had nothing to do with religion, a large reason for the animosity between the Irish and English would be removed. |
How do you figure that?
quote:
2) Is it not true that Charles was forbidden to marry a Catholic?
|
The church would be opposed on the grounds that Camilla is a divorcee (Charles is a widower). However there is no reason to believe that the church would stand in the way of the marriage.
Parliament would most likely change the Act of Settlement if Charles wanted to marry a Catholic.
Edit - factual corrections
Last edited by Dauphin on 21-01-2003 at 01:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dauphin
|
|
Caught in a tuna net
Jan 1970
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
The problem a lot of Irish have had is swearing an oath of allegiance to a Monarch who is head of the Church of England.
|
Thats not a religious issue its a national issue. If it was religious why have we had a Jewish Prime Minister swear allegiance to a Queen, or a whole host of Catholic MPs swear allegiance to the Queen?
quote:
SD, you seem to ignore that Charles dated and wanted to marry Camilla while both were still single. His mother and father said no. If he had done so, he would have been bypassed for succession or, as with George IV, I believe, he would have been forced to have the marriage annulled. |
George IV was king for 10 years and his reign was ended by death. I presume you mean Edward VIII.
In his circumstances he abdicated because of Wallis Simpson, a divorcee. The reason the issue of abdication was forced upon him was because Prime Minister Baldwin wanted the King, a Nazi sympathiser, to resign his position. This was a perfect opportunity to do just that.
If Charles had asked for a change in the law in 1970s, then the PM at the time would more than likely passed a law permitting it. There is no reason to want Charles to pass up his claim to the throne.
Charles has also stated that when/if he becomes King he will be referred to as Defender of the Faiths. Implying that although he is the head of the Church of England he is also upholding other faiths, Catholicism included.
All this said, I still want to know how this impacts on real government, which lays in the hands of the elected parliament. How is the UK system of government "the ultimate goal of such modernists as Osama bin Laden."?
The UK has had a wider spectrum of leaders - When was the last time the US had a female or a Jewish President?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
Sagacious Dolphin, you know exactly why Prince Charles will take the title of "Defender of the Faiths." His own life is screwed up because he could not marry Camilla, a Catholic. But regardless of his reasons, this is a tremendous step toward the right direction.
As to the Irish not wanting to swear allegiance to a monarch was also head of the Church of England, that has a lot to do with England's historical discrimination against Irish Catholics. My own family, for example, fled Ireland in 1850. There is a reason my family fled Ireland in 1850. It had a lot to with religious discrimination.
As to England, I congratulate you on having both Jewish and women Prime Ministers. I suspect that one day we to will have our own as president. Up until today, we have had exactly one president who was not a Protestant, and that was John F. Kennedy, an Irish Catholic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
quote:
There is a reason my family fled Ireland in 1850. It had a lot to with religious discrimination. |
In 1850 the US discriminated with extreme prejudice against blacks.
Now are you going to explain the OBL statement or not? |
It wasn't that long ago that the UK in NI really handed it to the Catholics.
And, what was ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo all about?
Why did Hitler kill 6 million Jews?
But, I agree, that religious discrimination is largely vanished in Europe today. I can hardly imagine an Osama bin Laden brand of religious extremism in Europe. I cannot imagine a European state closing stores on Sunday or not permitting one the right to mow one's grass on Sunday. Something like that could never happen in Europe, could it?
Last edited by Ned on 21-01-2003 at 08:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
He was, and there wasn't.
But it certainly says something that it took into the 20th century for the US to even elect a Catholic president, while the UK had elected a half-Jew PM in the 19th century... |
Rest assured that if he hadn't converted to Anglicanism he would have never gotten close to becoming Prime Minister.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogger
My point is that the condition on Charles II being allowed to take the throne (after they'd killed Charles I) was that his brother, James II (a Protestant) was to succeed him. Charles' son disagreed with that and was killed for it. That was the last time a Catholic ever got near the throne of England. |
When was the last time a Protestant got close to the throne of Spain? Could the King of Spain become a Seventh Day Adventist? Does the sovreign of the Netherlands have to be Dutch Reformed? Do the sovreigns of Denmark, Norway and Sweden have to be Lutheran?
Say, when did the Italians get rid of their king?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-01-2003 01:26
|