Will Prince Charles ever ascend to the throne?

Pickpocket

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I've been meaning to watch that. Is it any good?

It's excellent. There's plenty of clips of the Windsor's sitting around feeling sorry for themselves so it might be a bit hard to stomach for some people. However it's an excellent examination of what it meant for the Royals to be dragged reluctantly into the mid 20th century.

It was written by Peter Morgan who also wrote The Queen, a Henry VII adaptation, The Other Boleyn Girl and he even contributed to the script of King Ralph!

So he's clearly deeply interested in the Royal family, especially the Windsors. However he said that he's profoundly anti-monarchist, that it goes against every bone in his body. He's just fascinated by what they mean to society and the way in which their lives play out in a public space, that they essentially have no choice in life, despite being so entitled.

It's very good. There's some great interplay between the Crown and Downing Street. I'd no idea how that relationship worked so it was very informative. There's also some unexpected storylines. I'm on the fourth episode now and it seems to be about the political fallout over London's 'Great Smog' of 1952.

Definitely worth checking out.

Dirty Dingus McGee

looksee wrote: »

In fact it made a good deal of difference to Brits living in Ireland (you know, a bit like a lot of Irish live in the UK). Attitudes changed and there was considerably less casual anti-Brit sentiment being tossed around. Of course there will always be a few here trolling about stuff they have no real experience or knowledge of, but in general her visit made a significant difference.

That's just patronizing nonsense.There hasn't been much issue between Irish and British people in a long while.

knucklehead6

Pickpocket wrote: »

It's excellent. There's plenty of clips of the Windsor's sitting around feeling sorry for themselves so it might be a bit hard to stomach for some people. However it's an excellent examination of what it meant for the Royals to be dragged reluctantly into the mid 20th century.

It was written by Peter Morgan who also wrote The Queen, a Henry VII adaptation, The Other Boleyn Girl and he even contributed to the script of King Ralph!

So he's clearly deeply interested in the Royal family, especially the Windsors. However he said that he's profoundly anti-monarchist, that it goes against every bone in his body. He's just fascinated by what they mean to society and the way in which their lives play out in a public space, that they essentially have no choice in life, despite being so entitled.

It's very good. There's some great interplay between the Crown and Downing Street. I'd no idea how that relationship worked so it was very informative. There's also some unexpected storylines. I'm on the fourth episode now and it seems to be about the political fallout over London's 'Great Smog' of 1952.

Definitely worth checking out.

That's today's post Christmas party sitting around doing nothing while nursing a slight hangover viewing sorted so!

Thank you.

Pickpocket

Anass Rhammer wrote: »

England are our closest neighbours and biggest trading partners. To suggest we would have no interest in what happens with their monarchy is just ludicrous.

I also suspect there'd be a lot of interest in this, but only in the same way as William and Kate's wedding, or Diana's death. It's about spectacle and, in this case, the unknown. It's new, different and would pique people's imaginations.

It's nothing got to do with being trading partners. If that was so important to Irish people's day-to-day then we'd be waiting anxiously at the announcement of every British budget and, in particular, the appointment of every Chancellor.

LordSutch

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Will Prince Charles ever ascend to the throne?

QEII could still be going for another twenty years, so at this stage I suspect the throne will skip Charles and go straight to William & Kate, hopefully.

They will make a great King & Queen (IMO).

andekwarhola

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not as entertaining as some of your posts, especially the one where you declared to us, in all seriousness, that you'd only give your seat up to a pregnant woman if she could prove it.

Mate.

Me old mucker.

Cor blimey.

Royal Wedding tea towel.

RobbieTheRobber

looksee wrote: »

In fact it made a good deal of difference to Brits living in Ireland (you know, a bit like a lot of Irish live in the UK). Attitudes changed and there was considerably less casual anti-Brit sentiment being tossed around. Of course there will always be a few here trolling about stuff they have no real experience or knowledge of, but in general her visit made a significant difference.

The Good Friday agreement played a much greater and significant role in normalizing the relationship between the United kingdom and Ireland than the visit of an aging figurehead.

The visit of the head of UK was a final step in that normalisation, and not some earth shattering event that brought about peace amongst the two nations.


Her speech was a non event to me. The president of Ireland probably says more profound things every time he needs to excuse himself to the bathroom.

Pickpocket

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The president of Ireland probably says more profound things every time he needs to excuse himself to the bathroom.

Images of Higgins ascending to the 'throne'...

DEFTLEFTHAND

LordSutch wrote: »

QEII could still be going for another twenty years, so at this stage I suspect the throne will skip Charles and go straight to William & Kate, hopefully.

They will make a great King & Queen (IMO).

Thinking the very same thing my friend.

King William and the Commoner Catherine.

Charles is too old to take up the role.

Pickpocket

LordSutch wrote: »

QEII could still be going for another twenty years

I can't see her living until she's 110 (although her mother lived to 101).

LordSutch

I'd forgotten she was 90.

Ten of fifteen years ... then hopefully Willian & Kate.

Pickpocket

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Charles is too old to take up the role.

It's all about symbolism and public perception. They/he could decide that House Windsor would be served best by having him ascend, or alternatively that King William (or whatever name he chooses) has a better ring to it.

Personally I think he'd give his right arm for it and always will. He's lived in either scandal or near irrelevance for a lot of his adult life. I'd say he gets hard just thinking about it.

weldoninhio

I'd love to see Harry get the crown. It'd put an end to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bloodline. The British Royal Family only changed their name to Windsor during WW1 because of anti-German sentiment.

Pickpocket

weldoninhio wrote: »

I'd love to see Harry get the crown. It'd put an end to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha bloodline.

How?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Pickpocket wrote: »

It's all about symbolism and public perception. They/he could decide that House Windsor would be served best by having him ascend, or alternatively that King William (or whatever name he chooses) has a better ring to it.

Personally I think he'd give his right arm for it and always will. He's lived in either scandal or near irrelevance for a lot of his adult life. I'd say he gets hard just thinking about it.

I know, the man has been waiting all life to become the King. I think for the future of the monarchy though that he should step aside once the queen dies and see his son become the King of England.

It's a whole fresh perspective, a young King and commoner wife will do wonders for Great Britain on the global stage..

weldoninhio

Pickpocket wrote: »

How?

Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.

Itssoeasy

Deleted User wrote: »

I didn't know QEII or even the House of Windsor was "profoundly anti-Catholic", what has she said or done? Didn't her granddaughter, Anne's daughter, marry a Catholic?

It's one of the ways you can lose your place in the que in line for the British throne. The king/queen of Britain is the head of the Church of England.

Itssoeasy

LordSutch wrote: »

I'd forgotten she was 90.

Ten of fifteen years ... then hopefully Willian & Kate.

Well Charles will become king if he's alive when his mother clocks off.

Itssoeasy

weldoninhio wrote: »

Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.

Wasn't Diana a cousin of Charles ? So not Windsor but she wasn't coming from common stock.

DEFTLEFTHAND

weldoninhio wrote: »

Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.

Interesting Fact.

Diana Spencer was a cousin of American screen legend Humphrey DeForest Bogart.

Dirty Dingus McGee

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Interesting Fact.

Diana Spencer was a cousin of American screen legend Humphrey DeForest Bogart.

Amazing that there were 2 American Screen legends with first name Humphrey and last name Bogart.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Amazing that there were 2 American Screen legends with first name Humphrey and last name Bogart.

Wha?

Explain your post sir.

looksee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That's just patronizing nonsense.There hasn't been much issue between Irish and British people in a long while.

I am not sure how it is patronising, but it is my experience of living here for 45 years since I was 25. There were certainly more significant political events in that time, I am simply saying that in my experience (and the experience of a few other Brits that I know) by a year after her visit, attitudes had changed considerably.

If it does not fit in with your preferred view, well I can't help that. I have no doubt that other events played a more significant part, but her visit provided a completion of the other events. Since we are dealing with perception here there is little point in your disputing my perception unless you are starting from exactly the same place.

Dirty Dingus McGee

looksee wrote: »

I am not sure how it is patronising, but it is my experience of living here for 45 years since I was 25. There were certainly more significant political events in that time, I am simply saying that in my experience (and the experience of a few other Brits that I know) by a year after her visit, attitudes had changed considerably.

If it does not fit in with your preferred view, well I can't help that. I have no doubt that other events played a more significant part, but her visit provided a completion of the other events. Since we are dealing with perception here there is little point in your disputing my perception unless you are starting from exactly the same place.

It's patronizing to think that just one event and suddenly the whole country's attitude changed as if we were spitting at brits on the street if we heard and english accent before her visit and we needed a visit from the queen to respect people form the UK and couldn't possibly have had respect for british people without her visit.I don't remember my attitude or the attitude of anyone else I know changing because of the visit so I suspect you are simply reading too much into an event and mistakenly using it as a turning point when it really wasn't.

The same thing gets trotted out about the use of Croke Park for soccer and rugby and the media claiming it was the day we "matured as a nation" which of course wasn't the case at all and similarly any over analyzing the queens visit .The media love over analyzing single events and interpreting them as a turning point when of course life is much more complex but it suits a particular narrative to tell us one event made a much bigger difference than it did and think the general public are gob****es and will fall for that line and buy into their bull**** theory.

Widdershins

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

All the monarchs sons guard the coffin all night long.

Like that episode where Father Jack wasn't really dead..

_Kaiser_

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

The president of Ireland probably says more profound things every time he needs to excuse himself to the bathroom.

The only thing that comes to mind whenever Higgins opens his mouth is "who is he supposed to be representing?". His speech lauding Castro recently certainly didn't seem to go down too well with most people.

Champagne socialist who only got the job because the then favorite Gallagher caught caught out/setup (depending on your viewpoint) by RTE and whoever was behind that agenda.

Widdershins

Widdershins wrote: »

Like that episode where Father Jack wasn't really dead..

:pac:

Pickpocket

weldoninhio wrote: »

Diana wasn't a "Windsor" and neither was James Hewitt.

And if such a thing were ever confirmed/admitted then Harry would have no claim on the throne whatsoever. A pointless thought exercise.

weldoninhio

Pickpocket wrote: »

And if such a thing were ever confirmed/admitted then Harry would have no claim on the throne whatsoever. A pointless thought exercise.

The royals would never confirm/admit it. You can be sure as hell that Lizzy knows though.

Skommando

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, perhaps you should read a few current British laws and ask yourself questions like: would your one be on the British throne if, say, she had become a Roman Catholic?

Go for it and tell us about this non-sectarian British monarchy.

well as 'Roman' Catholics are now equally despised in Ireland as well, it kinda takes the wind out of your argument.

I admit to having a strange fascination with the British Royals. I have no strong political opinions about them or their impact on us, I'm more curious as to what type of people they are.

Do William and Kate sit down together of an evening and chat away like any other couple. Do they read bedtime stories to their babies. Would the queen ever say "Phil my dodgy knees are acting up".

Then there are the more crazy ones like Andrew. There were lots of rumours about his friendship with that Jeffrey Epstein dude. Any truth I wonder.

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

I admit to having a strange fascination with the British Royals. I have no strong political opinions about them or their impact on us, I'm more curious as to what type of people they are.

Do William and Kate sit down together of an evening and chat away like any other couple. Do they read bedtime stories to their babies. Would the queen ever say "Phil my dodgy knees are acting up".

Ah you'd have to think so. They are still people at the end of it all and away from their "day job" I'm sure they do the same things as the rest of us.

Itssoeasy

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Ah you'd have to think so. They are still people at the end of it all and away from their "day job" I'm sure they do the same things as the rest of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe1PsVGUSaw

They seem a normal enough bunch from this video. Well as normal as you can be being the queen of England.

Widdershins

William and Cate are very into wildlife conservation. A bit contradictory since they are into hunting. Like all overprivileged knobs, they justify it by saying it's about population control.

Teyla Emmagan

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Best health care in the world. They do seem to have good genes to be fair. And Prince Philip only married in and he's incredible for 95.

Queen Victoria Was The great great grandmother of both the queen & prince Philip.

Itssoeasy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETc8VutRflk

twill

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

The only thing that comes to mind whenever Higgins opens his mouth is "who is he supposed to be representing?". His speech lauding Castro recently certainly didn't seem to go down too well with most people.

Champagne socialist who only got the job because the then favorite Gallagher caught caught out/setup (depending on your viewpoint) by RTE and whoever was behind that agenda.

I'm no fan, but champagne socialist? His father was on the anti-treaty side in the civil war and suffered for it, so his socialism came the hard way.

His views on Castro may not have gone down well - allegedly for Castro's lack of democratic credentials - with those who look to the US for their politics, but the US has murdered or unseated nearly every left-wing or democratic leader in South or Central America since the 1950s. Castro didn't make Allende's mistakes.*

As to the thread title, he will ascend to the throne someday and also live frustratingly long. I'm fascinated by the amazing P.R. campaign waged by the British monarchy to get from the lows of the 1990s-2000s, when many supported the disestablishment of the monarchy, to the huge success of the "William and Kate" nonsense of today. Crafty beggars. And stupendously rich, too.

*Sorry for the tangent.

entropi

I don't think she'll ever abdicate the throne. I think it was done in Belgium or Netherlands this/last year though, which was pretty sound of their monarch.

SeanW

Deleted User wrote: »

Even as trolling goes your interest in, and admiration of, the blood-based, blood-soaked, profoundly anti-Catholic and anti-Irish, anti-democratic British monarchy is always disturbing.

Huh? Did "the monarchy" ever do anything, to anyone alive in modern times? "The monarchy" has been only a figurehead in the UK for a very long time.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah, the "good Nazi" defence: the institution may be iniquitous but he/she personally was not even if they benefit directly from it. Although you appear to be denying the explicit legal reality of anti-Catholicism upon which the British monarchy, and the British state, rests today in 2016. Nothing much anybody can do about that denial in the face of reality, though.

Something ... something ... something NAZIS ... something.

Oh, so now she's responsible for initiating legislation. Very good then. You mean that legislation in 2013, 60 years after she became Queen of England? 60 years - yes, she sounds positively brimming in love for Catholics. And the same 2013 legislation which reiterated, clearly, that Catholics could not become head of the British state? Curious how you missed that part of your lovebombing of your supposedly non-sectarian British monarchy.

Act of Settlement 1701

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Umm ... the Monarchy does not make laws. Parliament makes laws. I think His/Her Majesty can delay the passage of laws a short time, but has no power beyond that. Their role is ceremonial.

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Eh....Pardon?

What Nazi's are you talking about?

That was my question ...

There seems to be some misunderstanding of what a Constitutional Monarchy actually is: a monarchy whose powers are limited, in European cases (and Japan etc), limited to the point of irrelevance. Many modern monarchies expect the personage of their monarchies to stay out of politics entirely. It is also not uncommon for monarchs to have a position in the religious affairs of the State, so that also imposes certain requirements, e.g. that the monarch be a part of that faith.

A good example of both requirements is in Japan, whose Imperial Family has an ecclesiastical role in the Shinto faith, and who are so limited in terms of politics that even as the current Emperor Akihito is aging, of failing health and feels he's not up to the job for much longer, and wishes to abdicate (which he cannot under Japanese law, made solely by their Parliament, the Diet), the speech he made some time back had to be so couched in cautious wording that if you weren't aware of the context of it, you might not be aware that in his heart the poor guy was screaming "get me out of here"... had he spoken any more strongly about the matter, it would have been a violation of an important principle that the monarch stays out of politics, because whether he can abdicate or not is a matter for democratically elected politicians.

By all means, bash monarchies if you consider them outmoded, their members privileged or whatever, but at least do so based on facts.

Lady Spangles

Unless Charles dies before his mother, he will succeed her. That's how the monarchy works, however much people want William and Kate to jump the queue. Ideally, the death of the current Queen will actually open up the debate on the Monarchy's future. I'm a lifelong republican from a largely republican family. When I was a kid, we were pretty much alone in our beliefs while most others were indifferent (or at least supporting the status quo). But as the years have passed, the republican movement has grown rapidly. We're much more organised and we're pushing ahead on many key issues.

EDIT: I should clarify, I'm English myself and grew up in England. When I say "republican from a republican family" I mean we're all anti-monarchy.

HellSquirrel

While I get that there are people who see "Queen" and immediately jump to "British! Am Irish! British Bad! Must hate!" and that they will never be convinced, I don't quite understand those who make silly comments about how they're idle spongers and do nothing. The Queen does actually have a lot of responsibilities and does a job that she was born into. Sure, that's weird to the rest of us, being born into it, and inheriting the job after your parent dies, but that doesn't change the work that's in it. Taking the queen herself as an example;

She's head of state (even if only constitutionally) of sixteen countries and as head of the Commonwealth, has to be extremely familiar with the ongoings of fifty-three countries. And then there's all the countries that the UK does business with that she also has to be familiar with. I'm familiar with the ongoings of about three, and of those, I'm a bit shaky on what Ireland (my own country!) is up to at any given time. Every day bar Christmas she has the responsibility to deal with the Cabinet documents, telegrams and business that needs her approval and signature. She and her husband are constantly out and visiting - whether it's the various official engagements within the UK or acting as ambassador to other countries. And bear in mind that while this might sound like a sinecure, imagine going to three official engagements at which you're on your absolute best behavior before lunchtime. No lazy Saturdays there! Even her one day off from the Red Boxes, Christmas, has the Speech and Christmas Day engagements. Oh, and she's been doing this every day for 64 years. And she's 90. Sure, she gets healthcare, but by God, you'd need it with that sort of schedule at 90 and 95.

Like, hate the monarchy and all they stand for as you want, no-one can stop you. But there's plenty of legit reasons to do so without making **** up. You might get a bit of a surprise if you suddenly ascended a throne and thought it was all lying around and peeled grapes, because it's mostly paperwork and very little personal freedom. Oh, and she's not allowed to vote.

It's not a job I'd want, tbh.

Ferrari3600

SeanW wrote: »

Huh? Did "the monarchy" ever do anything, to anyone alive in modern times? "The monarchy" has been only a figurehead in the UK for a very long time.

Something ... something ... something NAZIS ... something.

Umm ... the Monarchy does not make laws. Parliament makes laws. I think His/Her Majesty can delay the passage of laws a short time, but has no power beyond that. Their role is ceremonial.

That was my question ...

There seems to be some misunderstanding of what a Constitutional Monarchy actually is: a monarchy whose powers are limited, in European cases (and Japan etc), limited to the point of irrelevance. Many modern monarchies expect the personage of their monarchies to stay out of politics entirely. It is also not uncommon for monarchs to have a position in the religious affairs of the State, so that also imposes certain requirements, e.g. that the monarch be a part of that faith.

A good example of both requirements is in Japan, whose Imperial Family has an ecclesiastical role in the Shinto faith, and who are so limited in terms of politics that even as the current Emperor Akihito is aging, of failing health and feels he's not up to the job for much longer, and wishes to abdicate (which he cannot under Japanese law, made solely by their Parliament, the Diet), the speech he made some time back had to be so couched in cautious wording that if you weren't aware of the context of it, you might not be aware that in his heart the poor guy was screaming "get me out of here"... had he spoken any more strongly about the matter, it would have been a violation of an important principle that the monarch stays out of politics, because whether he can abdicate or not is a matter for democratically elected politicians.

By all means, bash monarchies if you consider them outmoded, their members privileged or whatever, but at least do so based on facts.

A Catholic monarch cannot ascend to the throne in Britain. That is a simple fact. Rather than address that fact, you've gone down some weird sidetrack to justify your forelock tugging.

HellSquirrel

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

A Catholic monarch cannot ascend to the throne in Britain. That is a simple fact. Rather than address that fact, you've gone down some weird sidetrack to justify your forelock tugging.

Well, no, because the head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. You do see that there's a bit of a conflict of interest in having a Catholic heading the Anglican church, right?

It's like complaining that a Muslim can't become Pope.

Ferrari3600

HellSquirrel wrote: »

While I get that there are people who see "Queen" and immediately jump to "British! Am Irish! British Bad! Must hate!" and that they will never be convinced, I don't quite understand those who make silly comments about how they're idle spongers and do nothing. The Queen does actually have a lot of responsibilities and does a job that she was born into. Sure, that's weird to the rest of us, being born into it, and inheriting the job after your parent dies, but that doesn't change the work that's in it. Taking the queen herself as an example;

She's head of state (even if only constitutionally) of sixteen countries and as head of the Commonwealth, has to be extremely familiar with the ongoings of fifty-three countries. And then there's all the countries that the UK does business with that she also has to be familiar with. I'm familiar with the ongoings of about three, and of those, I'm a bit shaky on what Ireland (my own country!) is up to at any given time. Every day bar Christmas she has the responsibility to deal with the Cabinet documents, telegrams and business that needs her approval and signature. She and her husband are constantly out and visiting - whether it's the various official engagements within the UK or acting as ambassador to other countries. And bear in mind that while this might sound like a sinecure, imagine going to three official engagements at which you're on your absolute best behavior before lunchtime. No lazy Saturdays there! Even her one day off from the Red Boxes, Christmas, has the Speech and Christmas Day engagements. Oh, and she's been doing this every day for 64 years. And she's 90. Sure, she gets healthcare, but by God, you'd need it with that sort of schedule at 90 and 95.

Like, hate the monarchy and all they stand for as you want, no-one can stop you. But there's plenty of legit reasons to do so without making **** up. You might get a bit of a surprise if you suddenly ascended a throne and thought it was all lying around and peeled grapes, because it's mostly paperwork and very little personal freedom. Oh, and she's not allowed to vote.

It's not a job I'd want, tbh.

This is basically a strawman. Few if any republicans would dispute that the Queen is personally hardworking, dutious and diligent (it's a different matter with some of her publicly funded relatives, mind you, but that isn't necessarily her fault). Indeed, most make clear that their views are not based on any personal antipathy against the current incumbent.

Ferrari3600

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Well, no, because the head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. You do see that there's a bit of a conflict of interest in having a Catholic heading the Anglican church, right?

It's like complaining that a Muslim can't become Pope.

I would turn that question back on you.

Doesn't something strike you a bit, well, off about a head of state in a country that claims to be a leading western democracy (a beacon of freedom and secular values, no less!) being also the head of one specific religious denomination?

And if something similar applies, in Japan, well, that's also wrong, in my view.

HellSquirrel

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

This is basically a strawman. Few if any republicans would dispute that the Queen is personally hardworking, dutious and diligent (it's a different matter with some of her publicly funded relatives, mind you, but that isn't necessarily her fault). Indeed, most make clear that their views are not based on any personal antipathy against the current incumbent.

Except the ones I was directly responding to calling her an idle sponger who does no work. I was pointing out that they're blindly incorrect and are talking out of their arses because they hate the concept of the British monarchy too much to do any sort of research.

Ferrari3600

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Except the ones I was directly responding to calling her an idle sponger who does no work. I was pointing out that they're blindly incorrect and are talking out of their arses because they hate the concept of the British monarchy too much to do any sort of research.

I didn't read all the thread. If republicans are claiming that the Queen personally is an idle sponger, then I agree with you that is a wrong-headed and misguided argument for them to adopt.

HellSquirrel

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

I would turn that question back on you.

Doesn't something strike you a bit, well, off about a head of state in a country that claims to be a leading western democracy (a beacon of freedom and secular values, no less!) being also the head of one specific religious denomination?

And if something similar applies, in Japan, well, that's also wrong, in my view.

Sure, feel free.

I'm pretty neutral on it, tbh. I'm not particularly religious myself, so I have no dogs in the race of Catholicism vs Anglicism. So really, I have to look at history and see why the situation is as it is. The reformation was needed, although the specific manner in which the Anglican Church came about was totally ridiculous. Still, it did, and a very important part of it at the time was that the head of state was head of the church (so Henry could marry Anne Boleyn after divorcing Catherine of Aragon). I suppose it's also arguable as to whether it's a better thing to have the loyalty that's split between secular and religious matters also split between two countries (Rome and UK in this case, or Rome and Ireland), an issue that exercised people immensely at the time. The Popes did tend to get involved politically and that caused divisions within the country. So there's some logic there.


To divest that power would be very tricky indeed, both in religious terms and in secular ones. More so the religious ones in that it is, I believe, something of an article of faith that the head of the state is the "ruler under God", divine wotsit and all that. While I fully agree that this is nonsense, I feel that way about a lot of religious views, so I can't really argue how important that is to a religious person :P

How would they go about it though? Elect a "pope" from the archbishops of England, I suppose, but that is getting perilously close to papism again. The Queen being the head of the Church is probably still the "safe" option in terms of ancient tensions between Catholicism and Anglicanism. My opinion of it otherwise doesn't really impact.

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

I didn't read all the thread. If republicans are claiming that the Queen personally is an idle sponger, then I agree with you that is a wrong-headed and misguided argument for them to adopt.

It is, yeah. I'm grand with differing opinions and all, and I'll happily debate them, but outright lies annoy me thoroughly.

Pickpocket

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

A Catholic monarch cannot ascend to the throne in Britain. That is a simple fact. Rather than address that fact, you've gone down some weird sidetrack to justify your forelock tugging.

Any reigning British monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. You couldn't have a Catholic king/queen as head of a Protestant faith (even though the role is only ceremonial). That's absurd.

How would you feel about a Protestant Pope?

Or more appropriately (given it's a similarly symbolic role) how would you feel about an Englishman, with no Irish citizenship, becoming the President of the Republic of Ireland?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Pickpocket wrote: »

Any reigning British monarch is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. You couldn't have a Catholic king/queen as head of a Protestant faith (even though the role is only ceremonial). That's absurd.

How would you feel about a Protestant Pope?

Or more appropriately (given it's a similarly symbolic role) how would you feel about an Englishman, with no Irish citizenship, becoming the President of the Republic of Ireland?

Erskine Childers?