cappie Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Politicians and constitutional experts threw their weight behind proposals sent to Downing Street this week to end a 300-year-old ban on Catholic monarchs. Labour backbencher Chris Bryant’s proposals call for a repeal of the 1701 Act of Settlement preventing Catholics from succeeding to the throne and laws giving males precedence over elder daughters in the royal line of succession, according to a report in The Guardian newspaper this week. Bryant, a former vicar, said in a pamphlet published by the Local Government Association last week that it would almost qualify a breach of human rights to insist that future monarchs swear to preserve the Church of England, according to Press Assocation. His proposals have drawn support from Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dems’ spokeswoman on equalities issues, was quoted by The Guardian as saying: “This is an overdue but welcome move. Whilst the hereditary principle itself is obviously still a bit dodgy, at least this modernisation ends the outrageous discrimination against Catholics and women." Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, was quoted as saying: "I welcome these moves. The Act of Settlement is an 18th-century anachronism that has no place in a modern 21st-century constitution. The SNP first raised the issue over a decade ago, the Scottish parliament united in 1999 to call for this long overdue reform, and I hope the prime minister follows through in early course." A spokesman for Downing Street, however, played down the suggestion that the Government was considering changing the law, according to Press Association. The spokesman said: "To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. "As the Secretary of State for Justice said in the Commons on March 25, we are of course aware of the concerns felt by many and we are always ready to consider the arguments in this complex area." [url="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/reformers.want.end.to.ban.on.catholic.monarchs/21528.htm"]http://www.christiantoday.com/article/refo...archs/21528.htm[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Never knew that ban existed. I guess it would almost have too though. Be pretty weird to have a Catholic leader and a Church of England. Wonder if this will happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='cappie' post='1665589' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:12 AM']Politicians and constitutional experts threw their weight behind proposals sent to Downing Street this week to end a 300-year-old ban on Catholic monarchs. Labour backbencher Chris Bryant’s proposals call for a repeal of the 1701 Act of Settlement preventing Catholics from succeeding to the throne and laws giving males precedence over elder daughters in the royal line of succession, according to a report in The Guardian newspaper this week. Bryant, a former vicar, said in a pamphlet published by the Local Government Association last week that it would almost qualify a breach of human rights to insist that future monarchs swear to preserve the Church of England, according to Press Assocation. His proposals have drawn support from Lynne Featherstone, the Lib Dems’ spokeswoman on equalities issues, was quoted by The Guardian as saying: “This is an overdue but welcome move. Whilst the hereditary principle itself is obviously still a bit dodgy, at least this modernisation ends the outrageous discrimination against Catholics and women." Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister, was quoted as saying: "I welcome these moves. The Act of Settlement is an 18th-century anachronism that has no place in a modern 21st-century constitution. The SNP first raised the issue over a decade ago, the Scottish parliament united in 1999 to call for this long overdue reform, and I hope the prime minister follows through in early course." A spokesman for Downing Street, however, played down the suggestion that the Government was considering changing the law, according to Press Association. The spokesman said: "To bring about changes to the law on succession would be a complex undertaking involving amendment or repeal of a number of items of related legislation, as well as requiring the consent of legislatures of member nations of the Commonwealth. "As the Secretary of State for Justice said in the Commons on March 25, we are of course aware of the concerns felt by many and we are always ready to consider the arguments in this complex area." [url="http://www.christiantoday.com/article/reformers.want.end.to.ban.on.catholic.monarchs/21528.htm"]http://www.christiantoday.com/article/refo...archs/21528.htm[/url][/quote] I think the ban is perfectly fair. The King/Queen is the head of the Church of England. The idea of haveing a Catholic/Jew/Muslim/anything other than Anglican as a monarch who must function as the head of the Anglican Church is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='Hassan' post='1665716' date='Sep 28 2008, 03:13 PM']I think the ban is perfectly fair. The King/Queen is the head of the Church of England. The idea of haveing a Catholic/Jew/Muslim/anything other than Anglican as a monarch who must function as the head of the Anglican Church is silly.[/quote] Having a monarch as head of a church just because their ancestor was a heretic is silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishConvert Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='Hassan' post='1665716' date='Sep 28 2008, 06:13 PM']I think the ban is perfectly fair. The King/Queen is the head of the Church of England. The idea of haveing a Catholic/Jew/Muslim/anything other than Anglican as a monarch who must function as the head of the Anglican Church is silly.[/quote] Actually, the problem is that the ban does not mention any other religions. It refers and applied specifically to Catholics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 YES, it is purposeful discrimination!! Welcome to Pm, Sc. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1665722' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:20 PM']Having a monarch as head of a church just because their ancestor was a heretic is silly.[/quote] That is your oppinion. Some may find designating a man as infalible in matters of faith and morals in prescribed circumstances because a college of old men say so is silly as well. As silly as you find the strucure of the Anglican Church it is their Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='ScottishConvert' post='1665731' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:29 PM']Actually, the problem is that the ban does not mention any other religions. It refers and applied specifically to Catholics[/quote] Yes, and England has had a history of anti-Catholic bigotry. However while most of their regulations are bigotry this one makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 (edited) [quote name='Hassan' post='1665790' date='Sep 28 2008, 03:42 PM']Yes, and England has had a history of anti-Catholic bigotry. However while most of their regulations are bigotry this one makes sense.[/quote] How does it make sense? At that time in history, yes it made [i]some[/i] sense, but is quite outlandish today. Now, if they are to increase the ban to cover [b]all [/b]other religions (except Anglicanism of course), then it would make sense. Edited September 28, 2008 by CatholicCid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='CatholicCid' post='1665796' date='Sep 28 2008, 03:45 PM']How does it make sense? At that time in history, yes it made [i]some[/i] sense, but is quite outlandish today. Now, if they are to increase the ban to cover ALL other religions (except Anglicanism of course), then it would make sense.[/quote] It makes sense because a Catholic should not be the head of the Anglican Church. I absolutly agree that if they are going to continue the ban they should extend it to all non-Anglican religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='Hassan' post='1665800' date='Sep 28 2008, 03:47 PM']It makes sense because a Catholic should not be the head of the Anglican Church. I absolutly agree that if they are going to continue the ban they should extend it to all non-Anglican religions.[/quote] The current ban says a Catholic should not be the head of the Anglican Church. It also says that a Mormon, Jew, Calvinist, Baptism, Lutheran, Scientologist, ect... can be the head of the Anglican Church. It does not make sense today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='CatholicCid' post='1665802' date='Sep 28 2008, 03:48 PM']The current ban says a Catholic should not be the head of the Anglican Church. It also says that a Mormon, Jew, Calvinist, Baptism, Lutheran, Scientologist, ect... can be the head of the Anglican Church. It does not make sense today.[/quote] No, that does not make sense. As I said the ban on Catholics make sense, but should be extended to all religions if they are going to keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 Ok, we agree then that the current ban does not make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='CatholicCid' post='1665810' date='Sep 28 2008, 03:56 PM']Ok, we agree then that the current ban does not make sense.[/quote] sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted September 28, 2008 Share Posted September 28, 2008 [quote name='CatholicCid' post='1665802' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:48 PM']The current ban says a Catholic should not be the head of the Anglican Church. It also says that a Mormon, Jew, Calvinist, Baptism, Lutheran, Scientologist, ect... can be the head of the Anglican Church. It does not make sense today.[/quote] Wrong. It does say a Catholic can not claim the Monarchy so long as they profess communion to the Church of Rome, but it also says who ever ascends the throne must be in communion with the Church of England or bring themselves into communion. By no stretch of the mind are any of those religions in communion with the Anglican Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now