Twice divorced Boris marries in Catholic Cathedral!

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Scotland and England in particular. But, also NI (don't know enough about Wales)

Oh god ya she really unified the North.

Have you ever been to Scotland or England because plenty there hate the monarchy. Not a majority but way more than enough to say she is divisive

paul71

ineedeuro wrote: »

Brexit was about stopping “da foreigner”, didn’t matter what religion he/she was part of

I agree, it no longer does but the roots of attitude come from the reformation, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and The Spainish Armada.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

Oh god ya she really unified the North.

Have you ever been to Scotland or England because plenty there hate the monarchy. Not a majority but way more than enough to say she is divisive

No, I didn't say she unites the North, I'm saying she's a unifying force across the UK - that's not even a subtle distinction. You mention those that hate the monarchy, but neglect to point out those that love them.

Caquas

Deleted User wrote: »

Off topic, but I do think the UK monarchy is a unifying force, especially QE2. Charles to a lesser extent I'd guess, but not without some influence.

Not entirely off-topic though it must seem so if you rely on the media.

Britain now has its first Catholic Prime Minister and the media, like most people in (post-Christian) Britain and Ireland, treat the news as mere celebrity gossip. But in that case, why the ban on Catholics succeeding to the throne? The time is ripe to abolish this ban, with a Catholic Prime Minister together with a Leader of the Opposition who is a long-time proponent of its abolition. And not just for Catholics. But then, why not go the whole hog and abolish hereditary succession i.e. the Monarchy?

Caquas

Caquas wrote: »

Not entirely off-topic though it must seem so if you rely on the media.

Britain now has its first Catholic Prime Minister and the media, like most people in (post-Christian) Britain and Ireland, treat the news as mere celebrity gossip. If so, why the ban on Catholics succeeding to the throne? Keir Stamer is a long-time proponent of abolishing the ban so now is the moment to act. But then, why not go the whole hog and abolish hereditary succession i.e. the Monarchy?

Well, it's not going to come during the remaining years of QE'2s reign. She's cut from the Defender of THE faith cloth. Charles seems a lot more open to other faiths - A defender of faiths perhaps. But, I'll try not to lose sleep over it.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thats not true as far as English laws and the Anglicans are concerned. Which is what matters in laws regarding the British PM.

And which law is that?

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, I didn't say she unites the North, I'm saying she's a unifying force across the UK - that's not even a subtle distinction. You mention those that hate the monarchy, but neglect to point out those that love them.

The North is the UK and yes I do mention those who love them I call them the majority. So all she does is unifies the people who like her which is not unifying at all

odyssey06

This is Boris, if he could get away with it he'd be polygamous with a Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu wife!

Danzy

Deleted User wrote: »

The country that literally voted themselves out of the EU for that very reason?

No matter how often it is repeated. It doesn't make it so.

It's a trope that Labour activitists sloshed in South London wine bars came up with to make themselves feel better and because they had no Idea what people Outside their own clique thought

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

The North is the UK and yes I do mention those who love them I call them the majority. So all she does is unifies the people who like her which is not unifying at all

The North is a case in point. There would be a lot more chance of a UI if the Monarchy went away. Ask Loyalists (clue is in the name) what they think of the monarchy and you'll be left in no doubt. I imagine the appreciation of the monarchy is quite high across unionism.



Are you seriously arguing the opposite? And I'd be sure a majority in NI are in favour of the monarchy.


And you agree that those that are in favour of monarchy are in the majority. Sorry, what was your point again?

paul71

odyssey06 wrote: »

This is Boris, if he could get away with it he'd be polygamous with a Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu wife!

He is a little of some of those as far as I know. He is the Great Grandson of Ali Kemal a Turkish journalist and his mother in turn was supposed to have been a Circassian Slave.

breezy1985

Danzy wrote: »

No matter how often it is repeated. It doesn't make it so.

It's a trope that Labour activitists sloshed in South London wine bars came up with to make themselves feel better and because they had no Idea what people Outside their own clique thought

What that brexit was about Catholicism or foreigners ?

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The North is a case in point. There would be a lot more chance of a UI if the Monarchy went away. Ask Loyalists (clue is in the name) what they think of the monarchy and you'll be left in no doubt. I imagine the appreciation of the monarchy is quite high across unionism.



Are you seriously arguing the opposite? And I'd be sure a majority in NI are in favour of the monarchy.


And you agree that those that are in favour of monarchy are in the majority. Sorry, what was your point again?

You don't understand what the word unifying means.
Having 51% of the population on board is not unifying it's the absolute opposite.

People died in a war in NI because of the divide which is the exact opposite of someone unifying.

Its like saying the treaty of 1921 was unifying

Fr Tod Umptious

Caquas wrote: »

Not entirely off-topic though it must seem so if you rely on the media.

Britain now has its first Catholic Prime Minister and the media, like most people in (post-Christian) Britain and Ireland, treat the news as mere celebrity gossip. But in that case, why the ban on Catholics succeeding to the throne? The time is ripe to abolish this ban, with a Catholic Prime Minister together with a Leader of the Opposition who is a long-time proponent of its abolition. And not just for Catholics. But then, why not go the whole hog and abolish hereditary succession i.e. the Monarchy?

It's very simple.
The monarch is the head of the Church of England.
They have to be a member of that church to be head of it.
Just like the Pope has to be a Catholic.

What changed a few years ago was the rule that the monarch or heir could not marry a Catholic.
Now the monarch or heir can marry a Catholic and not relinquish their place in the line of succession.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

You don't understand what the word unifying means.
Having 51% of the population on board is not unifying it's the absolute opposite.

People died in a war in NI because of the divide which is the exact opposite of someone unifying.

Its like saying the treaty of 1921 was unifying

My point was that the monarchy is a UK unifying force, including NI within the UK. That there may be a sizeable element in NI that are anti monarchy is irrelevant.


Besides, the vast majority of Nationalists would be nationalist whether a UK has a monarchy or not. So, again, irrelevant.

Caquas

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's very simple.
The monarch is the head of the Church of England.
They have to be a member of that church to be head of it.
Just like the Pope has to be a Catholic.

What changed a few years ago was the rule that the monarch or heir could not marry a Catholic.
Now the monarch or heir can marry a Catholic and not relinquish their place in the line of succession.

That’s the nub of it but you fall into a logical fallacy typical of conservatives who tend to argue that something is impossible because it contradicts some other principle. Same-sex marriage met the same reaction.

Why not amend the Act of Supremacy? The next Monarch could be secular and let the Archbishop of Canterbury run the Anglican Church. Would avoid any awkwardness with a Catholic (or Jewish, or Muslim etc.) Prime Minister

Yes, that would be revolutionary. I’m liking it more and more.

bigar

banie01 wrote: »

Sod the Germans, bring back the true Stuart's!
Surely there is a Jacobite claimant still knocking about somewhere?

That claimant would be Franz, Duke of Bavaria.

breezy1985

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My point was that the monarchy is a UK unifying force, including NI within the UK. That there may be a sizeable element in NI that are anti monarchy is irrelevant.


Besides, the vast majority of Nationalists would be nationalist whether a UK has a monarchy or not. So, again, irrelevant.

So your point is that the monarchy is unifying amongst monarchists in the UK but the people in the UK it doesn't unify don't count.

Can you not see how stupid what you are saying is

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

So your point is that the monarchy is unifying amongst monarchists in the UK but the people in the UK it doesn't unify don't count.

Can you not see how stupid what you are saying is

Wow, you're right. Now that you put it that way what you've been saying isn't moronic at all. Congrats on winning the internet.

An Claidheamh

Fritzbox wrote: »

Well, I like it, it's a nice looking building.

At least London, unlike Dublin, has a Catholic cathedral.

Dublin does, one is occupied by the Anglicans, the other is the Pro Cathedral

(There was actually a fiercely sectarian ban on Catholic Churches being built under British rule until the late 19th century)

Danzy

An Claidheamh wrote: »

Dublin does, one is occupied by the Anglicans, the other is the Pro Cathedral

(There was actually a fiercely sectarian ban on Catholic Churches being built under British rule until the late 19th century)

I didn't want to say, tongue in cheek, but with history in mind, that there are only Catholic cathedrals in this country,not to prejudice any claim by squatters.

biko

Well, I hope they will be happy

FitzjamesHorse

bigar wrote: »

That claimant would be Franz, Duke of Bavaria.

Technically he is the Duke IN Bavaria (not OF Bavaria). He is a harmless old duffer who is mightily embarrassed by his subjects who assert he is the true king of England, Scotland and ....Ireland.
His ancestors of course fought the British in World War One so of course that makes them the "gallant allies in Europe"...which supported the Republic so I think it is safe to say he has no intention of reclaiming any of his thrones.
Unfortunately I have spent far too much time in the company of English Jacobites (they will fight to the last Scotsman or Irishman) and their tweedy eccentricities.

English Catholics are of course very different from our commoner Irish types. They are anti Irish and quite a lot of their recusant families are Ampleforth/Sandhurst. I met a few in Belfast in the 1970s and their view was that the Irish were in rebellion against GOD...and the Pope (the English one) and of course Laudabiliter which was a papal bull which gave Ireland to England.
"Papal Bull" or as one of our more recent cardinals said "Papal Bulls##t.

The key is of course that Republicans whether Franch, American, Irish or Spanish are actually satanists ...Satan being the first Republican.
Of course a lot of London churches are a bit uppity ...being origianlly embassy churches.

The old Bavarian embassy church has an interesting history. Portuguese embassy chapel I think at one time.
But much to the chagrin of the legitimists and monarchists their favourite church became the centre for those migrants...Irish, Spanish, Italian working in hotels in the west end. The Jacobites did not like that one bit.
I understand it is now the outreach chaplaincy for Londons Gay and Lesbian communities.

breezy1985

FitzjamesHorse wrote: »

English Catholics are of course very different from our commoner Irish types. They are anti Irish and quite a lot of their recusant families are Ampleforth/Sandhurst. I met a few in Belfast in the 1970s and their view was that the Irish were in rebellion against GOD...and the Pope (the English one) and of course Laudabiliter which was a papal bull which gave Ireland to England.
"Papal Bull" or as one of our more recent cardinals said "Papal Bulls##t.

Who is the English pope. I thought English catholics followed the same pope.
Do you mean English christians ?

fryup

fryup wrote: »

no it isn't.....it has married priests/vicars, women priests/vicars, women bishops

worlds apart

fvp4 wrote: »

That’s fairly recent. Anglicanism and Catholicism are much closer than either is to proper red and tooth and claw Protestantism.

women priests & bishops are, but married priests have been around for centuries

joseywhales

Caquas wrote: »

You mean abolish the Monarchy? Yes, if they could find something to replace it.

De Valera managed to write the monarchy out of our Constitution by creating a Republican substitute - a President controlled as firmly by the Government as any constitutional Monarch. Could the British manage the same trick while holding the United Kingdom together? After QEII, the Scots Nats might switch to republicanism.

If the Brits were promised an end to the Harry/Meghan/Oprah show, sensible people would rally round the republican option

Yes, its like the combustion engine was invented but these guys will only use horses because tradition. And they wonder why their "kingdom" is in a constant state of decline. Also, I must have missed the part where Jesus said that whomever can subjugate the population will represent him on earth. He was a big fan of Herod!

stoneill

biko wrote: »

Well, I hope they will be happy

At least he got his hair done and a well fitting shirt for the day.

Dyr

Caquas wrote: »

That’s the nub of it but you fall into a logical fallacy typical of conservatives who tend to argue that something is impossible because it contradicts some other principle. Same-sex marriage met the same reaction.

Why not amend the Act of Supremacy? The next Monarch could be secular and let the Archbishop of Canterbury run the Anglican Church. Would avoid any awkwardness with a Catholic (or Jewish, or Muslim etc.) Prime Minister

Yes, that would be revolutionary. I’m liking it more and more.

Seems as how we're on a power to de people before profit buzz, do you know how much support there is in the UK for abolishing the Monarchy?

breezy1985

Bambi wrote: »

Seems as how we're on a power to de people before profit buzz, do you know how much support there is in the UK for abolishing the Monarchy?

I would say the hardcore Republicans and hardcore monarchists are about the same but the middle who think that Liz/Wills & Kate are nice people, ah sure yet are harmless or that they are good for tourism will swing it wildly in the monarchists favour probably 70 to 30

Its similar to here where most middle ground people are not religious but if you told them you are taking down the local grotto or changing the name of the school from St. Dave's to Wherever College and taking down the giant crucifix outside they would be against it

Caquas

Bambi wrote: »

Seems as how we're on a power to de people before profit buzz, do you know how much support there is in the UK for abolishing the Monarchy?

The question is asked regularly and, until recently, British people strongly favoured the Monarchy over a Republic (i.e. an elected Heads of State). Now young Britons have shifted to favour a Republic. If only this was a hundred years ago!
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/21/young-britons-are-turning-their-backs-monarchy

The Monarchy will survive QEII but will it survive her successor? If the Crown passed directly to William, it could give the Firm another 50 years but if Charles takes the Throne there are so many skeletons in his closet (not to mention his brothers!) there is a likelihood that a real debate will start and Monarchy is hard to defend if they’re pulling down statutes of slave holders.