Mon Jan 28, 2013, 10:19 AM

rug (47,264 posts)

Royal succession bill raises religious questions

Will the British throne cut its ties to the Church of England?

By Janyce McGregor, CBC News
Posted: Jan 28, 2013 7:31 AM ET
Last Updated: Jan 28, 2013 9:03 AM ET

Prince Charles is said to be concerned that changes to the relationship between the Crown and the Church of England have not been thought through.

Despite the fact that the current bill to change the rules surrounding the Royal line of succession only removes the current ban on marrying a Roman Catholic, it could be the first steps on a slippery slope.

The Daily Mail reported earlier this month that the man who is first in line to inherit the throne from his mother, Queen Elizabeth, raised his concerns about the "rushed" bill in a private government meeting, fearing "unintended consequences" from some of its features.

The popular British tabloid also reported that some Church of England bishops shared his worries about what might happened if the son or daughter of Prince William and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge first married a Roman Catholic and then had to confront the Catholic canon law requirement to raise that child as a Roman Catholic.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/01/25/pol-royal-baby-bill-religion.html

12 replies, 494 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

12 replies	Author	Time	Post
Royal succession bill raises religious questions (Original post)	rug	Jan 2013	OP
I would rather see a bill that simply eliminated the whole lot of them.	cbayer	Jan 2013	#1
+116,689	Angry Dragon	Jan 2013	#2
birthright is undemocratic	angel123	Jan 2013	#3
Yes, I know. But I'm married to a Brit and his does.	cbayer	Jan 2013	#4
Charles will never be King. Hardly anybody outside the Daily Mail likes him. And they think he had	mr blur	Jan 2013	#5
How will Charles be prevented from being king?	cbayer	Jan 2013	#6
Since when has what anybody wants governed the succession?	muriel_volestrangler	Jan 2013	#11
I understand that the Monarch is the head of the COE, but I hate discrimination.	hrmjustin	Jan 2013	#7
I think that's the key point, detaching the monarch from the Church of England.	rug	Jan 2013	#8
I see no problem with the monarch being the head of the church.	hrmjustin	Jan 2013	#9
Well, one of the monarch's ritles is "Fidei Defensor" (/"Defensatrix") and Charles has said,	mr blur	Jan 2013	#10
That wouldn't work well with the Lutherans, even though they're in communion.	rug	Jan 2013	#12

Response to rug (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 11:51 AM

cbayer (120,011 posts)

1. I would rather see a bill that simply eliminated the whole lot of them.

Birthright is undemocratic, imo. The monarchy is archaic and should be abolished.

Reply to this post

Response to cbayer (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:02 PM

Angry Dragon (24,073 posts)

2. +116,689

Reply to this post

Response to cbayer (Reply #1)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:18 PM

angel123 (18 posts)

3. birthright is undemocratic

If you are not British, you opinion does not matter. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Response to angel123 (Reply #3)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 12:35 PM

cbayer (120,011 posts)

4. Yes, I know. But I'm married to a Brit and his does.

So I have some influence. (BTW, he is a monarchist, much to my dismay).

Reply to this post

Response to rug (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:05 PM

mr blur (5,295 posts)

5. Charles will never be King. Hardly anybody outside the Daily Mail likes him. And they think he had

his wife killed.

William will do as he's told.

Unless we manage to get rid of the whole parasitic bunch of them, of course.

Reply to this post

Response to mr blur (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 04:07 PM

cbayer (120,011 posts)

6. How will Charles be prevented from being king?

Reply to this post

Response to mr blur (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 07:18 PM

muriel_volestrangler (65,326 posts)

11. Since when has what anybody wants governed the succession?

The whole point of monarchy is that you get the next one in line, however unpopular they are. You can have them declared insane or otherwise physically unable to become monarch; you could try to put pressure on them to take themselves out of the succession, but, if people did, I think it would clinch the case for getting rid of the monarchy altogether, and they'd realise that. But 'not popular enough' is not a good enough reason for ignoring all established traditions, while simultaneously ignoring democracy. It's not the X Factor.

Reply to this post

Response to rug (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:27 PM

hrmjustin (9,081 posts)

7. I understand that the Monarch is the head of the COE, but I hate discrimination.

Change the law.

Reply to this post

Response to hrmjustin (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:29 PM

rug (47,264 posts)

8. I think that's the key point, detaching the monarch from the Church of England.

It doesn't matter who the particular monarch is. It raises a bunch of historical questions as well.

Reply to this post

Response to rug (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 06:35 PM

hrmjustin (9,081 posts)

9. I see no problem with the monarch being the head of the church.

She is only head of the COE not the Anglican World Wide Communion, and certainly not the Episcopal Church. I just wish that the Church would pick better leaders like we do here in the US.

Reply to this post

Response to rug (Original post)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 07:17 PM

mr blur (5,295 posts)

10. Well, one of the monarch's ritles is "Fidei Defensor" (/"Defensatrix") and Charles has said,

that he'd like to be seen as "Defender of all faiths" which, fairer though it might be, will make him no more popular than he currently is (ie: not very).

Reply to this post

Response to mr blur (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 28, 2013, 07:39 PM

rug (47,264 posts)

12. That wouldn't work well with the Lutherans, even though they're in communion.

Reply to this post

Religion (Group)