Royal Wedding

gypquitacorrie

Lantern Swinger
MIKH
The title Defender of the Faith was NOT taken by Henry VIII after the reformation, but bestowed upon him by Pope Leo X in 1521 some 13 years prior to Henry deciding for political and financial reasons (oh and his divorce) to seceed from the influence of Rome
Never said it was taken by by Henry 8th, it was in fact resinded by the head of the RC church and then re-bestowed on the monarch by a Act of Parliment.
 

gypquitacorrie

Lantern Swinger
Joe_Crow
Furthermore, the Church of England is not a Protestant church, but a Catholic one.
The Church of England is the officially established Christian church in England, the Mother Church of the worldwide Anglican Communion and the oldest among the communion's thirty-eight independent national churches.

The Church of England considers itself to be both Catholic and reformed:

Reformed insofar as many of the principles of the early Protestant reformers as well as the subsequent Protestant Reformation have influenced it via the English Reformation and also insofar as it does not accept Papal supremacy or the Counter-Reformation.
Catholic in that it views itself as being an unbroken continuation of both the early apostolic and later mediæval universal church, rather than as a new formation, and in that it holds and teaches the historic Catholic faith. In its customs and liturgy it has retained more of the Catholic tradition than most other churches touched by the Protestant Reformation.
It would appear we both need to go round the bouy!
 
All this theological debate is jolly lovely, but it does somehwat detract from the point that a catholic is not allowed on the throne, or to be in the succession thereof.

Replace Catholic with say - black person, or Muslim, or homosexual and it does not sound so nice does it?

I thought we had a country where equality is everything, apparently not if you are a Catholic.
 

slim

War Hero
rosinacarley said:
All this theological debate is jolly lovely, but it does somehwat detract from the point that a catholic is not allowed on the throne, or to be in the succession thereof.

Replace Catholic with say - black person, or Muslim, or homosexual and it does not sound so nice does it?

I thought we had a country where equality is everything, apparently not if you are a Catholic.

If a homosexual were to be on the throne would we then have two Queens :thumright:
 

gypquitacorrie

Lantern Swinger
rosinacarley wrote:
All this theological debate is jolly lovely, but it does somehwat detract from the point that a catholic is not allowed on the throne, or to be in the succession thereof.

Replace Catholic with say - black person, or Muslim, or homosexual and it does not sound so nice does it?

I thought we had a country where equality is everything, apparently not if you are a Catholic.

The Act of Settlement was brought in for a very good reason which has already been mentioned, i.e. we do not what a head of state who is second to the head of a church!
 
Which just goes to prove what an ailing anachronism the whole system is and while I am at it, all those un-elected bishops need to be cleared out of the house-of -lords.
 
gypquitacorrie said:
rosinacarley wrote:
All this theological debate is jolly lovely, but it does somehwat detract from the point that a catholic is not allowed on the throne, or to be in the succession thereof.

Replace Catholic with say - black person, or Muslim, or homosexual and it does not sound so nice does it?

I thought we had a country where equality is everything, apparently not if you are a Catholic.

The Act of Settlement was brought in for a very good reason which has already been mentioned, i.e. we do not what a head of state who is second to the head of a church!

Get real - how can that be a valid reason? This is the 21st century, where it is ok to have a black or female president of the United Stated but not a Catholic on the throne?
 

gypquitacorrie

Lantern Swinger
Get real - how can that be a valid reason? This is the 21st century, where it is ok to have a black or female president of the United Stated but not a Catholic on the throne?
Only if they had been born in the USA! each country has its only rules and Reg's when it comes to their head of state.
 

mikh

MIA
gypquitacorrie said:
Never said it was taken by by Henry 8th, it was in fact rescinded by the head of the RC church and then re-bestowed on the monarch by a Act of Parliament.

Now that I did not know.

However, I do disagree that the title of defender of the faith reflects the position of Supreme Governor of the Church of England, especially as it was bestowed by a non religious body.

When all is said and done the CofE came into effect because it was expedient for Henry VIII, there then followed a number of upheavals in England due to the religious leanings of the monarch of the time. The barring of catholics holding the throne did make sense for a time, but surely that time has long passed, and it is long overdue being revoked. As Rosy has stated what would be the reaction if another group was banned from holding the throne,
 

gypquitacorrie

Lantern Swinger
mikh
As Rosy has stated what would be the reaction if another group was banned from holding the throne,

Just a guess here but about 99% of the country are actually banned from holding the throne has we are not direct decendants of Sophie.
Of course this is a democratic monarchy so feel free to petition your local MP to table a amendedment to the Act of Settlement and attempt to change the Bill has it stands, of course all new bills have to be rubberstamped by the Monarch so good luck with that one!
 
Top