observer Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 - to change the the 1701 Act of Succession, which prevents Catholics from becoming King/Queen? With the worst economic crisis in 50 years, surely our MPs have got more important things to think about, aside from digging their snouts in the trough? Charles will succeed Elizabeth, William will succeed Charles, which should give at least another 50 years or so, to ponder this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve the Original Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Definatley not!! a Prod has been on the Throne and thats the way it should stay.. lol seriously though does it really matter? i think not after all if big ears get to be king and his pet Rotweiler queen i will be ashamed to have such a pair as K&Q so if that can happen why cant a Cathloic become King or Queen... Cant really see that happening for a long long time ... Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey Settle Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 I think it is a Papal plot and would lead to the Spanish Inquisition just look at what would happen to Liz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY&NR=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve the Original Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Do that to Bigears and his Pet Rottweiler.. in fact i would help.. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Steve, I think you need to see someone about your obsession, woof woof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 It's obviously a diversionary tactic to divert the headlines away from the way Gordon has messed up the economy. Really it's a non story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Given that the PC equal rights lobby, has no doubt prompted the question (lib dem private member's bill); perhaps the same lobby could be taking on the Roman Catholic Church and demanding a female Pope? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Don't you think women have enough power already???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve the Original Posted March 28, 2009 Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Don't you think women have enough power already???? in a word YES!!! Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2009 Argueably "women" have always been "the power behind the throne"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 It's just that most males don't recognise the fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Ben Summerskill, chief executive of gay rights group Stonewall reckons it is an ideal opportunity to end similar discrimination against homosexuals. He wants measures to let future generations of Royals to take part in a same sex wedding without losing their right to inherit the throne. Can you imagine two queens as joint kings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 one way of alowing the institution to become extinct?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Who gives these people a platform to spout such drivel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 They are employed by central government to keep us laughing our socks off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 .... with gay abandon! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 can you imagine two Queens as joint Kings Very witty and very funny Eagle! I could however see Big Ears trying to put a crown on his Rotweiler. Remember the 'no fault' divorce laws? How conveniently they were passed for enabling Charles to divorce Diana. Could this present fiddling about with the laws of the land have an as yet unforseen purpose? Perhaps whilst everyone is distracted by the 'credit crunch' they are clearing the way for a future Catholic monarchy? As things stand at present if Charles were to succeed to the throne, and become Supreme Governor of The Church, Camilla could not be queen. Even though they are legally married, because they had a civil ceremony she is not his wife in the eyes of the church. However, as the Catholic church only recognises marriages if they've been conducted in a catholic church neither Charles or Camilla have ever been 'properly' catholic married before. (Camilla's first marriage although to a catholic was conducted in the Guards Chapel = Anglican) So if both now converted to catholicism they could marry in a catholic church and if the law is changed Charles (as a catholic) can still succeed to the throne - with Camilla as his queen. It sucks doesn't it? Just amazing how far some people might go to get their own spoilt way! Believe the spoilt couple are visiting the Pope at the end of April wonder what he will have to say to them? Gordy no doubt will go along with it all hoping to get the catholic vote. Why can I not read anything anymore without seeing ulterior motives and corruption everywhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Interesting theory if rather convoluted - Henry VIII will be turning over in his grave no doubt! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 why convoluted Observer? it's straightforward enough to understand, stranger things have happened! and yes look at what Henry V111 did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 It's convoluted, and also incorrect. The Catholic church recognises non-Catholic marriages, it does not recognise any form of divorce. A divorcee cannot marry in a Catholic church without first obtaining an annulment of their previous marriage. This involves providing evidence and proving to a church court that the previous marriage was in some way fundamentally flawed from it's very beginning and therefore should never have taken place. Any marriage of significant duration, or which produced children, is extremely unlikely to be judged to have been sufficiently flawed for an annulment. Having been half way through this particular process you can believe me, it's no mere paperwork exercise! Doesn't make any difference if the previous marriage was Catholic, Anglican, Civil or Hare Krishna. Charlie, as a widower, could theorectically have had a Catholic marriage second time round if he'd been marrying a previously un-wed or widowed Catholic. But he wasn't, and didn't, so it's a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Plus, as a divorcee, she won't be able to attend communion, let alone marry in the Church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Yes she could, any divorcee can - because the Catholic church does not recognise divorce. Even a remarried divorcee (kind of a bigamist in the eyes of the church) can take communion. Some individual parish priests frown on it and might even suggest that a remarried divorcee seeks communion at another church, but they have no right to with-hold it. With-holding communion is akin to excommunication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, if you haven't been married in a Catholic ceremony you aren't married end of story. The moral side of it is a completely different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Nope. I was married to my first wife in a civil ceremony, then divorced in a civil court. But I can't now marry my new partner in a Catholic church without an annullment of my first marriage from the Vatican. They most assuredly do recognise non-Catholic marriages!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/ccb/catholic_church/how_do_i/marry_in_a_catholic_church_if_i_ve_been_married_before Second paragraph down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.