Saturday, March 28, 2009

Two Questions

Having read this in the Times about the Royal family and equal opportunities I have two questions.
  1. If the Monarch was a Catholic, and the Prime Minister wanted to execute prerogative powers to put HM Armed Forces into action but the Vatican morally and ethically opposed said action, ergo the Crown did too, what would be the implications for where (a) British sovereignty lies and (b) the Monarchy itself?
  2. Is it not rather quaint that in a discussion about ending discrimination against women and Catholics in the Monarchy, that the Catholic church is in no doubt the bar on it is discriminatory whilst simultaneously it bars women from becoming priests or the Pope in its own body? Isn't that kind of irony squared?
Note for the smartarses: Yes I know there are really three questions there. Sue me.


Julian said...

So Prince William would be barred from becoming king if he married a catholic. So would I.

In addition I am barred from becoming king whether I get married or not.

Who, exactly, is being discriminated against here?

Events dear boy, events said...

I would not worry that much about this Dizzy. It is all another Brown smokescreen. These questions will not need answering for some years if at all. Unless of course HMQ's life comes to an abrupt end after the shock resulting from King's visit last Tuesday

Anonymous said...

(i) The Church teaches that one must reach moral decisions by obeying a well-formed conscience. Put simply, it teaches a fairly classical form of virtue ethics; the monarch, correctly formed in the virtues, will make right decisions. The teaching authority of the church, as far as the laity is concerned, acts almost exclusively through exhortation designed to form the conscience. The Church rarely targets a single specific act and a single specific individual to say “don’t do that or the consequences will be…” One might also point to history: we had Catholic monarchs for many centuries; they were quite able to hold their own against papal power!

Therefore, the implications for particular acts would probably be minimal; but for the long term development of moral action in the political sphere, probably beneficial.

(ii) Ironic? No, not really. To be ironic one would have to assume that the Church had the power to ordain women and that it withheld that power. This is not the case – the Church believes and teaches that it simply has no power to ordain women, because the Lord did not give it that power.

Gregory the-not-so-Great.

Anonymous said...

This process has been gestating for many years now. Do not be fooled into thinking this is a sudden invention, smokescreen, etc.

The very existence of the Royal Family depends on the repeal of the 1701 Act. This has been sanctioned already in the proper places. They fly it in the public sphere to gauge reaction only. It will happen.

Oldrightie said...

Brown's involved so there will be an unpleasant hidden agenda. Is he Catholic? Or does he want Tone as King to his, Brown's, EU Presidency?
Well, it is Saturday!

JMB said...

I have always thought that it is a lot of fuss about nothing.

I am sure that if either Prince William or Harry wanted to go out with a Catholic then they would do so. If they then decided they wanted to marry her then they would give an ultimatum that they would abdicate if refused permission, the law would be changed very quickly.

Why worry about it if that has not happened.

Similarly if Prince William's first child is a girl then the law can then be changed or they could wait until she was old enough to say whether she wanted to be monarch - I suspect that if Princess Anne had been older than Prince Charles then she would prefer to keep the privileges without having the responsibility of becoming Queen.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only person to find it deeply ironic that the government finds the time to tackle "discrimination" within the royal family, whilst completely ignoring the real issue.

Surely, whether we have an in-bred male or female buffoon in the office, or the details of the particular brand of absurd falsehood they pay lip-service to, seem somewhat irrelevant compared to the discrimination of having a hereditary office of head of state in the first place.

If you are not a Windsor, you are excluded, whether a man or a woman, black or white, clever or thick, gay or straight, no matter how much better you'd be at the job.

Let's remember that

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. "
- Denis Diderot

disess said...

Monsieur Dizzy

J'agree avec Monsieur Julian

UND What about the discrimination against all those ordinary folk (eg Senor Swarzenegger) who cannot become President of the United States by the random accident of NOT being born in the United States


Your obedient servant etc

G Eagle

wv disess

Anoneumouse said...

Dizzy, its not the Pope you need to be worried is the European Union.

An Interesting Constitutional Situation Could Arise Here!

Back in 2005 Canada sent two warships to the Arctic port of Churchill, following a spat between Canada and Denmark, over an uninhabited rock called Hans Island in the eastern Arctic region.

"Article 224 (of the European Treaty) states that Member States shall consult one another with a view to taking in common the necessary steps to avoid the operation of the Common Market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in case of serious internal disturbances affecting public policy or the maintenance of law and order ("ordre public"), in case of war or serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out undertakings into which it has entered for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security".

Now if I recall correctly, In Canada, the Queen's official title is Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

UK Governments since 1972 have claimed that European Law is "supreme" in the UK . What would be the position in law if the EU attempted to impose its will on British subjects, in support of Denmark upon Canadian Citizens by force in the circumstances which are envisioned in Article 224 of the Treaty?

oh humm

T'old 'un said...

Anonymous said...

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. "
- Denis Diderot

28-Mar-2009 09:40:00

Denis Didewrote was quite right with what he writ. Sadly he missed out politicians.

Anonymous said...

1. There's no evidence from other countries that catholic heads of state/premiers/legislators are beholden to the Vatican lilne.

There are quite a lot catholics in Italy, and abortion's been legal there for over 30 years. If the Italian Presidents and PMs did what ever the Papacy said I don't think that'd be the case.

2. Your first sentence doesn't actually make sense either grammatically or logically. It'd be ironic if the catholic church was campaigning for women's and catholics' rights in monarchy but it isn't. This all comes from Private Member's Bill by Evan Harris. Either you don't understand the situation or what irony is.

(It is ironic that Harris, 2009 secularist of the year, is campaigning for catholic rights).

Anonymous said...

What if the Monarch was a Muslim?

Anonymous said...

It would be simpler to abolish the royal family, then they would be free to be male or female, Roman Catholic or anything else.

Time will Tell said...

There is a fundamental question.
That is, why is the matter being raised now. It is not a matter of extreme urgency when the UK is in economic crisis.
Can it be a smokescreen to divert attention from Brown's myriad failures?
Surely not.

Faith said...

To question 1--OK--what happened in 1688 is meant to prevent nasty situations like this. Remember the Act of Supremacy and the antiquated notion of Britain as imperium? When Bracton a Roman Catholic, incidentally) said: "Ipse autem Rex non debet esse sub homine", you think he included the Pope? Of course, it must be said that taking orders from the EU is little better than taking them from the Pope.

Dr Evil said...

If the monarch was a Catholic they would also ne head of the Church of England. That would be distinctly weird.

The man of straw reckons it is a few years away. Such a fantasist. As if Nu Labour will get in ever again.

Anonymous said...

Didn't seem to bother mediaeval monarchs, all of whom were Catholics and some of whom managed to go to war, not just against the pope's wishes, but against the pope...

Windsor Tripehound said...

The trouble with Evan Harris's bill is that it conflates two separate issues.

I doubt that anyone has any problem with the issue of the succession, i.e. that the Crown should pass to the eldest child regardless of its sex.

Marriage to a Roman Catholic is a bit more problematic. The Vatican does not recognise the validity of Anglican Holy Orders, so the monarch (the Supreme Governor of the Church of England) could find him/herself with a partner who could not recognise the validity of their position. So IMO its up to the Vatican to change its attitude.

A previous poster asked "what if the monarch were a Muslim?". The Act of Settlement requires the monarch to be in communion with the Church of England, so as things stand, it can't happen.

Anonymous said...

If the monarchy gave up the position as head of the C of E - there wouldn't be any issues? Yes or no? A secular monarchy perhaps? Is that a possibilty?

Jon Lishman said...

Two answers:
1) None whatsoever.
2) No, it isn't.

You might want to read Dan Hannan's new article on this subject over at the Torygraph. (And you might not, of course).

Anonymous said...

As to 1) what's so different now if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to to declare such action morally repugnant, against Christian teaching and sinful?
2) I agree


Anonymous said...

Surely the answer is to abolish the monarchy.