Jump to content

Do we need -


Recommended Posts

- 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? :shock: Charles will succeed Elizabeth, William will succeed Charles, which should give at least another 50 years or so, to ponder this question. :roll::wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ...




Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

can you imagine two Queens as joint Kings :lol:

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...