Reformers Want End To Ban On Catholic Monarchs

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1665831' date='Sep 28 2008, 04:42 PM']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.[/quote]

You're right, I stand corrected. I had forgotten about that addition to the Act.

I suppose I should amend my quote to say "The current ban says a Catholic cannot be in line for the throne. However, it allows any Mormon, Jew, Calvinist, Baptism, Lutheran, Scientologist, ect... to be in line for the throne."

I believe that would be more accurate.

Edited September 29, 2008 by CatholicCid

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1665939' date='Sep 28 2008, 06:33 PM']You're right, I stand corrected. I had forgotten about that addition to the Act.

I suppose I should amend my quote to say "The current ban says a Catholic cannot be in line for the throne. However, it allows any Mormon, Jew, Calvinist, Baptism, Lutheran, Scientologist, ect... to be in line for the throne."

I believe that would be more accurate.[/quote]
Technically, yes. But no one who is not a member of the Church of England can become monarch, so they wouldn't stay members of their respective religions very long. And you also have to remember that at the time of this act, there was literally no other religions in England besides the official Church and the Catholics. They didn't need to make amendments for other religions, there were none. Had there been a huge population of Muslims, rest assured, they would have been mentioned as well.

[Didacus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1665722' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:20 PM']Having a monarch as head of a church just because their ancestor was a heretic is silly.[/quote]

LOL

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1666269' date='Sep 29 2008, 12:31 PM']Technically, yes. But no one who is not a member of the Church of England can become monarch, so they wouldn't stay members of their respective religions very long. And you also have to remember that at the time of this act, there was literally no other religions in England besides the official Church and the Catholics. They didn't need to make amendments for other religions, there were none. Had there been a huge population of Muslims, rest assured, they would have been mentioned as well.[/quote]

Yes, but they do are not automatically removed from the line of sucession to the throne. The worst effects probably being felt by those Anglicans who married Catholics who also lose their legitimate place in the line of sucession.
I would not go as far as to state that there were no other religions in England at that time, but no other state recognized religions. I don't have my history books on me, but I have an inkling of a feeling that England was in union with the Calvinistic Dutch at that time.

However, as the many years have passed, they surely should have had made additions excluding those of other religions or married to those of other religions from the line of succession.

Also, would anyone know when the third section of the Act (profess Anglican faith to take the throne) was added on? I can't recall.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1666315' date='Sep 29 2008, 08:04 PM']I would not go as far as to state that there were no other religions in England at that time, but no other state recognized religions. I don't have my history books on me, but I have an inkling of a feeling that England was in union with the Calvinistic Dutch at that time.[/quote]

Jews were given religious freedom early on.

Bear in mind the British constitutional setup is not exactly linear from Henry VIII. Saying there has been an unbroken line from then until now is putting it very simply if not incorrectly, particularly in ecclesial matters.

[Majella]

In the Netherlands they have the same ban. The queen is not the head of the church there, but even if a prince (or Princess) was to marry a Catholic, he/she would lose all rights to the throne.
Pure anti-Catholicism!

[scardella]

[quote name='cappie' post='1665589' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:12 AM']Whilst the hereditary principle itself is obviously still a bit dodgy,[/quote]


This is the part I like. Go back to the Roman principle of having a civil war every time the monarch dies!

[Pax_Et_Bonum]

Is it true that Prince Charles was thinking about becoming a Catholic? (I hear a lot of gossip)

[Justin86]

I had an Anglican friend back in the States who told me that the Archbishop of Canterbury has told the monarchs to stay out of church affairs as much as possible, and that they do. I think they still appoint the bishops however.

In either case eventually allowing persons of any religion to the throne is an obvious move in modern England, however what surprises me, and what is probably shaking up the royals the most, is the idea that simply the eldest child, regardless of sex, should secede the throne. They've been the United [b]Kingdom[/b] forever, and that idea would completely shake up their whole system of government. They wouldn't be a Kingdom, they'd be...I dunno. I never heard of this before. Is there even an English word to describe this form of government?