Anti-catholism athe heart of the british royal family

later12

walrusgumble wrote: »

What is the story regarding the religion of the British Prime Minister? Is it true that it would be preferable if they were not Catholic? Diserlaii was a Jew wasn't he?

It is only preferable in that it would make 'advising' (ordering) church appointments less awkward on behalf of the Government. In fact, Britain's would-be PM, and previous Conservative leader Michael Howard, is Jewish, and his candidacy for number 10 was never an issue in that regard.

The idea that Tony Blair had to wait until after his leadership to become a Roman Catholic is also a myth, it was simply his personal choice.

walrusgumble

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Great Scott, but what about Rome Rule and all that we heard from the Lads up the M1?:eek:

walrusgumble

later10 wrote: »

It is only preferable in that it would make 'advising' (ordering) church appointments less awkward on behalf of the Government. In fact, Britain's would-be PM, and previous Conservative leader Michael Howard, is Jewish, and his candidacy for number 10 was never an issue in that regard.

The idea that Tony Blair had to wait until after his leadership to become a Roman Catholic is also a myth, it was simply his personal choice.

Trust me when i say the conversion of auld tony was not what i had in mind (i am not a knee jerker so sir e) when I asked that question. Sure Tony, he would tell ya anything. During the St Andrews talks he had Rev Ian Paisley believing that they pretty much shared the same religious values. Come to mention it, is there really really really really that much difference between the Roman Catholic Church and Church of England/Ireland/Scotland compared to the Presbytarians?

JustinDee

getz wrote: »

he was in fact he changed his religion

He was baptised as a Christian when eleven or twelve years old. Before this, no mohel ever had gotten a blade near Disraeli. He never had a Bris and never had a Bar Mitzvah. He even went to Sunday school as a child.

Batsy

Originally Posted by RDM_83 again
I really don't see how people don't think this is important*, symbolism and ritual is important, ask an aethist to go to mass because it doesn't have an effect and see what sort of response you get. Whenever people are asked to swear an oath etc to the Monarch your doing a similar thing.

In addition though slightly off the topic of the Monarchy itself, the Church of England has actual power by having the Lords Spiritual (which may include other religions but has never included a Catholic), in the house of lords, a chamber that unlike the Senate here actually has an impact on the political process

Only members of the Church of England can be Lords Spiritual.

Of the 792 members of the House of Lords, 26 of them (4% of the total) are Lords Spiritual, and they all must be Church of England (the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian, is not represented by spiritual peers. The Anglican churches in Wales and Northern Ireland are no longer established churches and are therefore not represented either). There have been only 26 Lords Spiritual for centuries.

The Church of England comprises 44 dioceses, each led by a bishop. The diocesan bishops of Canterbury and York are archbishops, who also have oversight over their respective provinces. The occupants of the five "great sees"—Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester—are always spiritual peers and Lords of Parliament. The Bishop of Sodor and Man and the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe may not sit in the House of Lords regardless of seniority as their dioceses lie outside Great Britain. (The former, however, sits on the Legislative Council of the Isle of Man ex officio.) Of the remaining 37 bishops, the 21 most senior sit in the House of Lords.

Some people argue that the Lords Spiritual are not peers and only the Lords Temporal (the non-religious peers, which comprise the vast majority of the Lords) are. Some, however, say that they are peers. Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage, for example, unequivocally states, "Diocesan Bishops of England in the Lords are — peers of the kingdom." On the other hand, the Encyclopædia Britannica of 1911 suggests, "the spiritual lords are not now regarded as peers."

wikipedia.org

RDM_83 again

As I understand it the Lords spiritual still have voting rights which is the important point, I admit 4% isn't a large amount but you will never find a politician that says that margin is not vital.

In addition there are man former anglican lord spirituals who hold Lord Temporals